Knot Resolver issueshttps://gitlab.nic.cz/knot/knot-resolver/-/issues2019-12-18T19:15:02+01:00https://gitlab.nic.cz/knot/knot-resolver/-/issues/481FORWARD/TLS_FORWARD: support forwarding to hostname, DANE2019-12-18T19:15:02+01:00Tomas KrizekFORWARD/TLS_FORWARD: support forwarding to hostname, DANEThe `FORWARD` / `TLS_FORWARD` policies currently require an IP address as a target. Instead, a hostname could be provided. However, the initial bootstrap + handling TTL could be quite complex.
If the bootstrap + TTL problem would be sol...The `FORWARD` / `TLS_FORWARD` policies currently require an IP address as a target. Instead, a hostname could be provided. However, the initial bootstrap + handling TTL could be quite complex.
If the bootstrap + TTL problem would be solved, `TLS_FORWARD` could also support DANE [RFC8310#section8.2](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8310#section-8.2)https://gitlab.nic.cz/knot/knot-resolver/-/issues/475daemon: support AF_UNIX for Do53 and DoT sockets?2020-11-24T16:29:44+01:00Vladimír Čunátvladimir.cunat@nic.czdaemon: support AF_UNIX for Do53 and DoT sockets?I split that away from [AF_UNIX for the other sockets](https://gitlab.labs.nic.cz/knot/knot-resolver/merge_requests/811), because I saw some assumptions in worker and/or session code, and there's been no demand so far. In particular, a ...I split that away from [AF_UNIX for the other sockets](https://gitlab.labs.nic.cz/knot/knot-resolver/merge_requests/811), because I saw some assumptions in worker and/or session code, and there's been no demand so far. In particular, a different libuv handle type would have to be used for AF_UNIX (third case added to UDP and TCP).