jiebi/ids-paragraph-commentary-corpus huggingface dataset:
Draft: draft-add-requirements

Commentary: Clean up list of requirements ( see email feedback for some details ) .
For resolver-identified claims, it is desirable that there is a
method of verifying that the claimed-equivalent Encrypted DNS
resolver is operated by the same administrative domain as the Do53
resolver.  In the subset of cases where the two operate at the same
IP address, this is not required.
For resolver-identified claims, it is desirable that there is a
method of verifying that the claimed-equivalent Encrypted DNS
resolver is operated by the same administrative domain as the Do53
resolver.  In the subset of cases where the two operate at the same
IP address, the equivalence can be more easily determined.
In either case the resolver would offer a TLS certificate proving
ownership of a name.  This name should be meaningful to the end user,
conveying the identity of the resolver operator, but given the lack
of network authentication it does not currently seem possible to
mandate a requirement that the name has to match anything else the
client knows.  It is not generally possible to obtain a TLS
certificate proving ownership of a locally-scoped IP address, so
discovery should not require this.
An encrypted DNS resolver can offer a TLS certificate proving
ownership of a name, but it is important to note that this name (or
any associated address) is often not sufficient to prove that an
Encrypted DNS resolver is equivalent to a Do53 resolver.