Re: [Add] questions about the Examples section of svcb-dns-02

[Ben Schwartz <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the questions!  I've adjusted the text [1] to make the examples
clearer.

DoT is the "default ALPN" in this draft, so unless it is explicitly removed
(by no-default-alpn), it is present, and uses port 853 unless "port-..." is
specified.  This is good for compactness but can be surprising, which is
why I used that example.

I removed the "echconfig" from the examples, as that is not the focus of
this draft (and isn't even mentioned in the text).

[1]
https://github.com/bemasc/svcb-dns/commit/f61c70ed02b550613fdbb37d3171ab1e6d359e2c

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:32 PM Peter van Dijk <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hello Ben, and rest of WG,
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schwartz-svcb-dns-02#section-8 has an
> example RRset for a resolver, containing 3 SVCB RRs. This example is
> very useful!
>
> However, I have a few questions/comments about it:
>
> (1) Can you reorder the bullet list to match the order in the RRset?
> (i.e. put the TLS one second)
>
> (2) I see one SVCB record (with priority 2) advertising a DoT server
> (by leaving out the ALPN). It has port=8530. Yet, the text above says
> there's DoT on 853 and 8530. Where does 853 come into play, if the
> prio=2 SVCB record says port=8530?
>
> (3) All three example RRs have an echconfig parameter. While I
> understand it makes sense for an operator to be consistent in doing ECH
> over all their offerings, it somewhat looks like everybody is expected
> to do echconfig - perhaps it would be clearer to not have echconfig on
> all three? Then, maybe clarify that it would in fact be better to have
> it always, but say that the svcb-dns protocol does not demand it.
>
>
> For (2) it's entirely possible I'm missing something - please let me
> know. Thanks!
>
> Kind regards,
> --
> Peter van Dijk
> PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/
>
> --
> Add mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add
>