On Wed, 2025-07-09 at 12:58 +0530, Shreyas Zare wrote:
>  
> The another thing to add here is that a resolver which implements RFC 9539 
> will have issues implementing opportunistic-SVCB-DoT along with it. The 
> resolver would anyways be probing DoT 853 without the SVCB signaling and when 
> there is an explicit SVCB signal, it will be essentially doing the same - 
> probe for DoT 853. I do not see how it is an improvement to RFC 9539.

A resolver implementer or operator might choose to not waste the cycles
on opportunistic, if a somewhat reliable signal is available -
especially if that signal covers 3 protocols instead of just DoT.

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.com B.V. - https://www.powerdns.com/

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to