Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-09.txt

Ben Schwartz <> Tue, 10 May 2022 01:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A648C157B3E for <>; Mon, 9 May 2022 18:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wyX_wNRT4zxD for <>; Mon, 9 May 2022 18:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e34]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE83DC14F72D for <>; Mon, 9 May 2022 18:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z144so15553046vsz.13 for <>; Mon, 09 May 2022 18:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rFpflCwkHEkfdpyzPzIWTfkrXHFPnVk9j3HXjqRpZaM=; b=MH+pSBeIC08bLQ6f9HcFDYNDM6uOwiHnwzMiL9VmPAOkYRwXXm6OaFyPSTWnslrKRO O1TMHRWm/SBRQzrEniH6FpzhLOmGuZGUqJc1qyLEOhsGS8j4fA+mnzlaLtBkT3n3ipl/ rBX0hIAsbR2JHiFRGzNOlgOvSReFFnm7Um8o7ai8Vv5SrXuVq12NrUqukgloatMyUX/W SOELJc4K+6IpzGfuBiVY1EP0IUepbbVZVqdf4Sy2fXwzRQbhOPHLqx3D00YbVMyV3wVd j2ovSIfxcrTwVPiveWCDYcVNu2++649oFvgFZzlq0UPqm3coVBtmFgpf/HsMHAyHjpxM fTQA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rFpflCwkHEkfdpyzPzIWTfkrXHFPnVk9j3HXjqRpZaM=; b=PY2zoCCGhuVChuaoqlgVI+Hia4A4j1/2vGxBsaDMlUFoBRGaimHeWn41u4qK6ZLnum UzTZjOLEeYFrjs+CM31+5VFgW+tzg4QA+C4DheKZ0wg+/O20fNK0bV2upnyIqnyYxmjg p6KgfrE0oRZ6D+RRp4vk8PIVVfX1UC7BjwDW0VshvjjFHdwcQRjmk+dCbGBpp98DW7nT OBmcY4KPW/MC2dL/+7nwIKdAhO/L/PB2dr3pz/yXt8DHBCiCm+Bh5Dj2GHpqtPOvi7qJ gcevnXZ6E4QV/ALW2pbpxkq2P8qREtLWnrJg/LJG6ei7vw0AVF/5cfrz5/htL7I7OQPA 17YA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532YlyGZrLI1veMLGC8nsPEhURaC8S/r7O733s2S1hfGB/ur4KxN EPITm38JyIZSW7QH+WRhbDxq2CtDw5/oJEuqZdo33Hpl4D2yZw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyQN31iBLUm2O7BiLNQdSEq2gJvVUS2h7LTz1UFcYzGVM2jp+oFFuovJHK1R2Zb8JZosOthEfd+Q3rq6Kr6/po=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:115a:b0:32c:e4dd:5121 with SMTP id j26-20020a056102115a00b0032ce4dd5121mr10376774vsg.25.1652145423364; Mon, 09 May 2022 18:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ben Schwartz <>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 21:16:52 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Cc: " WG" <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="0000000000001a18dd05de9e15cb"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-09.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 01:17:07 -0000

Internet-Drafts "expire" but they never go away.  The IETF makes them
publicly accessible on an "archival" basis.  RFC 8447 is an example of an
RFC that lists them specifically as a suitable specification form, without
limitation.  My impression is that the WG consensus was for this draft to
do the same.

I don't think this allowance serves a specific purpose beyond making it
very easy to acquire registrations, which is something that several working
group members voiced support for.  It is not limited to experimental usage.

I believe the underlying logic is that parameter registrations are harmless
because unrecognized parameters can safely be ignored, and the codepoint
space is not at risk of exhaustion.

On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:25 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <>

> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 3:12 PM Ben Schwartz <> wrote:
>> Yes, that's covered in the description:
>> The designated expert MUST ensure that the Format Reference is stable and
>> publicly available, and that it specifies how to convert the
>> SvcParamValue's presentation format to wire format. The Format Reference
>> MAY be any individual's Internet-Draft, or a document from any other source
>> with similar assurances of stability and availability.
> Yes, I saw that text, but that sentence doesn't make it clear to me why an
> auto-expiring document is acceptable as a possibly-permanent format
> reference, so I thought I'd double check.
> -MSK