Code change:
4.1. <ins> When a client discovers Designated Resolvers from an Unencrypted Resolver IP address, it can choose to use these Designated Resolvers either automatically, or based on some other policy, heuristic, or user choice. This document defines two preferred methods to automatically use Designated Resolvers: Authenticated Discovery authenticated, for when a TLS certificate can be used to validate the resolver's identity. Opportunistic Discovery opportunistic, for when a resolver is accessed using a non-public IP address. A client MAY additionally use a discovered Designated Resolver without either of these methods, based on implementation-specific policy or user input.  Details of such policy are out of scope of this document.  Clients SHOULD NOT automatically use a Designated Resolver without some sort of validation, such as the two methods defined in this document or a future mechanism. 4.2. Authenticated Discovery is a mechanism that allows automatic use of a Designated Resolver that supports DNS encryption that performs a TLS handshake. </ins> In order to be considered an authenticated Designated Resolver, the <del> TLS certificate presented by the Encrypted Resolver MUST contain both the domain name (from the SVCB answer) and the IP address of the </del> <ins> TLS certificate presented by the Designated Resolver MUST contain both the domain name (from the SVCB answer) and the IP address of the </ins> designating Unencrypted Resolver within the SubjectAlternativeName certificate field.  The client MUST check the SubjectAlternativeName field for both the Unencrypted Resolver's IP address and the

Related discussion:
text: I do not agree this scenario is sufficiently narrow to drop. Is your concern over the usefulness of the scenario, or over naming it "authenticated"? I am open to suggestions on the latter; I strongly disagree with the former.
Both. How is this information useful to the client? I have not heard of any proposal for any client to behave differently on the basis of whether its encrypted connection is authenticated, when the resolver is identified by IP address. As for the name, RFC 7435 is the reference. I find it a bit confusing, but here's some of the relevant text: The "authenticated" section does not seem to describe an "authenticated" protocol by this definition, because it does not provide a downgrade-resistant method to determine that authentication is expected to work.
Please suggest a more accurate name then please. I do agree behavior naming should be consistent with other documents. Your bar for useful is apparently different from mine. Before DDR, a client configured only with an IP address had only unencrypted DNS as an option. With DDR, the client can possibly encrypt that connection. A transient attacker would have to have been present for the initial SVCB discovery to prevent that; an attacker arriving after DDR has taken place will be kept out of the loop. In the worst case, a client is returned to square one. I do not agree that just because a mechanism can be prevented means the mechanism provides no value. It doesn't have to. In the common case, the client is forced by lack of knowledge to use unencrypted DNS. If it can from that default configuration divine encrypted DNS configuration, that's a net positive. Resolver selection is out of scope and has nothing to do with it.
I've updated to address this question by reformulating the concept of authentication, and being much more explicit about the threat model. Yes, that's a good step, but it doesn't rely on authentication. This is a very helpful observation. I've incorporated it in .
I believe this particular issue is largely overtaken by events. Particularly, I think we've added some clarity and escape hatches with , and protections with .