Re: [DNSOP] HTTPSSVC/SVCB bikeshed: poll for what to name them

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Wed, 20 November 2019 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.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 4DC5C1208DA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 01:32:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ApsK8bk4uMOH for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 01:32:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from straasha.imrryr.org (straasha.imrryr.org [100.2.39.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BA41120AC7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 01:32:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by straasha.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 80006331D4E; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 04:32:34 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 04:32:34 -0500
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20191120093234.GU34850@straasha.imrryr.org>
Reply-To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CAKC-DJiuE0Gmt5kMz8UJbZ625hdeMZLih3CCg1FQKx92D79oLw@mail.gmail.com> <20191120090406.GT34850@straasha.imrryr.org> <b1498a4c-3682-2d62-7811-648568992e76@time-travellers.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b1498a4c-3682-2d62-7811-648568992e76@time-travellers.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/8fKPn4n_nRdLSc8pLqXhM7ofSTE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] HTTPSSVC/SVCB bikeshed: poll for what to name them
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: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:32:37 -0000

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:18:20AM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:

> > 1. SVCB  ->  SRVLOC
> > 2. HTTPSSVC  ->  HTTPLOC
> 
> Unfortunately these are similar to the fun but rarely-used LOC record:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1876
> 
> And also similar to the even less-frequently used NIMLOC record
> 
> http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/nimrod/dns.txt
> 
> Not necessarily a complete veto, but definitely a mark against 
> SRVLOC/HTTPLOC, I think.

FWIW, I don't see any opportunity for confusion, especially given how
little these others are used.  The idea is that something less cryptic
than a "B" suffix is better at conveying the purpose of the record.

Some similarity is harmless if there's no chance of confusion, and
the primary feature of the new record is an explicit "location",
the other key/value pairs are optional elements.

That said, if you don't like LOC, a related variant is:

    - SRVCONF
    - HTTPCONF

Which is configuration information about a generic service and an
HTTP service, but this loses precision, because configuration does
not capture the prominence of redirection to a new location.

-- 
    Viktor.