IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] SVCB chain lengths

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Fri, 27 December 2019 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.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 8623212013B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:24:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 zGTadvmJnTbl for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:24:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7D811200DB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:24:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from linux-9daj.localnet (vixp1.redbarn.org [24.104.150.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8ED6CB0591 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:24:03 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:24:03 +0000
Message-ID: <3375822.RQWdseIzcJ@linux-9daj>
Organization: none
In-Reply-To: <CAMOjQcEZqvpYNTJ7vRXdkC11mUYADvBOnzOHTwWH49wyXBfp_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMOjQcGP3=+_fb9pt3dvF27kR1ENH+=2L28EDNPQU6JF8zkrzQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMOjQcGLhu-27932_FoyNmV=7RGG074zzkaGNxHMs0qrfAO+4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMOjQcEZqvpYNTJ7vRXdkC11mUYADvBOnzOHTwWH49wyXBfp_Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/C0WCXOUjgbaJMyIhKmXtQmEw1hQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] SVCB chain lengths
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, 27 Dec 2019 22:24:11 -0000

On Friday, 27 December 2019 18:25:29 UTC Eric Orth wrote:
> I propose we add the following 4 statements to the spec:
> 1) Alias-form SVCB records SHOULD NOT delegate to names with any form of
> alias record such as alias-form SVCB or CNAME.
> 2) Clients receiving SVCB records MAY limit the length of chains of
> alias-form SVCB records that they will follow.
> 3) Stub resolvers SHOULD follow at least one alias-form HTTPSSVC record
> before enforcing chain limits.
> 4) Recursive resolvers SHOULD follow at least (8?) alias-form
> HTTPSSVC records before enforcing chain limits.
> 
> [explaination]

sgtm. +1.

-- 
Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email