IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] SVCB wire format (draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-01)

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Fri, 03 January 2020 08:22 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F43C1200D8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 00:22:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PsOoppC_9y1D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 00:22:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55AAF120046 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 00:22:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33E503AB005; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 08:22:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17C4C16006D; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 08:22:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07976160067; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 08:22:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 4FKYYYRCOKBw; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 08:22:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.30.42.91] (d114-75-120-47.sbr1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [114.75.120.47]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7A3B16003E; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 08:22:36 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 19:20:05 +1100
Message-Id: <D6D45C49-8EB7-41E3-B8C0-D498E19CC521@isc.org>
References: <20200103074644.GB4580@miek.nl>
Cc: Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200103074644.GB4580@miek.nl>
To: Miek Gieben <miek@miek.nl>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17C54)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/4G0kJDVIbp7s2z036Zw4YfKr3l4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] SVCB wire format (draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-01)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 08:22:43 -0000

There are 0 or more sub TLV fields. 

-- 
Mark Andrews

> On 3 Jan 2020, at 18:47, Miek Gieben <miek@miek.nl> wrote:
> 
> [ Quoting <bemasc=40google.com@dmarc> in "Re: [DNSOP] SVCB wire format (draft..." ]
>> Hi Miek,
>> 
>> The wire format is the same for AliasForm and ServiceForm, exactly as you
>> describe.  What do you think is different?
> 
> Because of this text:
> 
> o the SvcFieldValue byte string, consuming the remainder of the
>   record (so smaller than 65535 octets and constrained by the RDATA
>   and DNS message sizes).
> 
> vs:
> 
>  o  a 2 octet field containing the SvcParamKey as an integer in
>     network byte order.
> 
>  o  a 2 octet field containing the length of the SvcParamValue as an
>     integer between 0 and 65535 in network byte order (but constrained
>     by the RDATA and DNS message sizes).
> 
>  o  an octet string of the length defined by the previous field.
> 
> 
> My reading of this is that for ServiceForm there will always be 4 octets and for AliasForm
> it may just be empty.
> 
>> Note that the wire format is definitely not yet final.  For example,
>> there's still some active discussion about precisely how to represent the
>> contents of the SvcFieldValue (in ServiceForm).
> 
> What's the reason behind not reusing the TXT record? To free-form? Other issues?
> 
> 
> /Miek
> 
> --
> Miek Gieben
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email