Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-05.txt

Ben Schwartz <> Tue, 11 May 2021 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5783E3A1CCE for <>; Tue, 11 May 2021 09:08:28 -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_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 yeMkwxZrnZ3Y for <>; Tue, 11 May 2021 09:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::435]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A47393A1CCC for <>; Tue, 11 May 2021 09:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s8so20714622wrw.10 for <>; Tue, 11 May 2021 09:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RhoBKdvIU8ugDClUDC6InRa1rT81MzAbxXha5f7PIpU=; b=qLCaLTdYdjoiqrc9vv3TdhJK9kZx+ev9mlZ9k5ZxzRBGgdPx7wHjyOT36HTuYSQxSy rnUdA5rOb1sISXBUpVQAlSeRbMWsmQzGk9JP37Lc/aDTyJNRMdF43MxD4FtP38mFzu3O rl7WtQWIdZTdvpmyuafiVAB7pV873nIWy5MjzeWLcatbJlYnLgGeluncCLbE0Wpju7zl 0zhRgLvjVkIUXC7z4bbmizWmDiDJKDSO734PIICHYP/TO9xhEj1rT5DKeadszVtPObTb dpxc96bJXHYg/UsjLVY1FXda8aWYw4Egrc9TdpAVB78tba54aeyn074D4DMVf5O4B5vs +2jA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RhoBKdvIU8ugDClUDC6InRa1rT81MzAbxXha5f7PIpU=; b=nxQ6LRnvWwocK/WRBjKzX/U+Yzblj7JndZ1Dzz1ezTtYZu1Z/ogTcX6+L7Ply5P4Pu EAFVNUTVYLFFruAYMjp9HJoM0pxeg6hKTjMGLOW678ABV1BfdYtWQXLTEtpqrcTZTn7N xlspvp0ViY6BsravAKEZYJTmCB7AeKBeqhJncqVAL1UNXcr3qIrchbhGOgb932/shnU4 0MfaFd79uALt4vKtORcCLROWoYkbtRlHZxRTCuNXkklKQLzcRl4GPwiomSNn4iL4mnJs UBDhD7c3nnqyQXjbNFAK+JqxmijuqXMn77LthSgexSImnf9fUq5XHyF6V+ioQanrRZdU KoIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5336xDBaucAnebumIMDmhH2su0i9Kpr2AYJ/PzhiricqaEN0yAwH hCsHoE/akUOt0eloZ0ww4roxUaaFcAUzmT1vFhEelQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx6FnZfO34sg8Z5lNOFYfrf6bln0pFej2rv6qzLEoFYxsJzbkCsoKHYLScjvTM307ZVIoUbuW5EKls96XPBVeE=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:eec4:: with SMTP id a4mr39505342wrp.159.1620749300256; Tue, 11 May 2021 09:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ben Schwartz <>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 09:08:08 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: "libor.peltan" <>
Cc: dnsop <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="0000000000005622c705c2101abd"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-05.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 16:08:28 -0000

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 3:31 AM libor.peltan <> wrote:

> If there really is a strong reason for putting multiple key-value records
> into one RData (instead of one RRSet), it should be described somewhere
> clearly
OK, I've proposed text documenting the reasoning here:

The proposed text is:

Storing a key-value map within a single RR, rather than placing each
pair in a separate RR, provides the following advantages:

* It enables a familiar key=value zone file syntax that matches zone
  experience with command-line arguments and other typical key-value
* It avoids requiring zone file authors to manage inter-pair binding IDs.
* It makes each record independently meaningful, consistent with the usual
  convention for DNS records (c.f. SRV, MX, AAAA, etc.).
* It saves at least 11 bytes of overhead per parameter by avoiding
repetition of
  the name, type, class, TTL, and inter-pair binding ID.
* It provides a wire format whose structural nesting matches the logical
  of each key=value pair, and avoids requiring cross-RR reconstruction of
  bindings by the client.