TLS 1.3 mandates use of X25519, Ed25519, X448, and Ed448.
Who is responsible for designing X25519, Ed25519, X448 and Ed448 and introducing these algorithms to TLS developers. The same person who designed and introduced DNSCurve. More diplomatically, a team lead by the same author as DNSCurve.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. DNSCurve is not DoH, nor is TLS, nor is TLS the same as Curve25519. IIRC, Bernstein designed a secure transport of his own, for an OS project at UIC. It was not TLS 1.3.
I did not say DNSCurve is DoH, DNSCurve is TLS nor that TLS is the same as Curve25519. I said that DoH relies on TLS and TLS 1.3 mandates cryptography designed by the same person who designed DNSCurve. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Constructing a straw man, perhaps. We are each stating facts. The reader must draw their own observations/conclusions.
The observation I make from the facts is that while DoH may win a "popularity contest" over DNSCurve (VHS vs Betamax) in terms of what most people will use, TLS and therefore DoH nonetheless is or soon will be relying on the work of the author of DNSCurve. Whether anyone else besides me thinks this is notehworthy I have no idea. I mean, the author could have just intended the work to be used in DoT or whatever was the current trend (VHS), but the fact that he demonstrated how it could be used in a different way (Betamax), encrypting each packet, to me that is not a coincidence. It was not meant to be ignored, IMO.
As an end user, I am not interested in what is popular, I am interested in what is best. But that's only me. Readers can decide for themselves.
TLS 1.3 mandates use of X25519, Ed25519, X448, and Ed448.
Who is responsible for designing X25519, Ed25519, X448 and Ed448 and introducing these algorithms to TLS developers. The same person who designed and introduced DNSCurve. More diplomatically, a team lead by the same author as DNSCurve.