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

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Sun, 09 May 2021 23:42 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
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 0DD493A24EB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 May 2021 16:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hopcount.ca
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 smu6DeJWTXY2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 May 2021 16:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x734.google.com (mail-qk1-x734.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::734]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 367FC3A24EA for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 May 2021 16:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x734.google.com with SMTP id q10so9647380qkc.5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 09 May 2021 16:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=Nu/XN9yyqP7HVXh1kT+FLjrtC3zx+/0mUNSApLjGKfg=; b=QnsYLBT87xE4zwZNDdWKQ9efFkcxmNHagoHP9QAgtz1r28a/hdYdF1PIr6XDpLrmtV OXJZq9kFT/Wq2jPn60BzqxZP3o6FO+PKSXWz9KZLj+ZtBuyz6yMfk5COZk8zxCw4gSPK A9OBQsj9ZYp+ewjU81KkT25iCt9vD/Uv577lM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=Nu/XN9yyqP7HVXh1kT+FLjrtC3zx+/0mUNSApLjGKfg=; b=CDfthkhdY3PfADpWPcTOfC/9ADxudJ/+oLyj6jzhlgECGFWV8JNE57E6fW1q1fvrAC UPUkDS0qkMjvvuITvhLiLSvUM6+sT25p8DO8OoNBD8plEi+0d9jqjAvYlzka+kXyJ2qN Hji38SOeFOCiQhEiRZarier/QWG7ruDgbrqeZApOJIv/BKBA0UQkQDCE1RwsxfM/RHKG Ep+aqNi3AgUu2juaZ7VEAdG/1WpCVV2CNInRhPD6rT6KBETpFrqFYaLvHonD1XLGdTrA lYdxS9UO6a6DzlMaaAW3lw8ycsU9R/ljYmzyKZCqaDEYmaQcZv/urjv6lk88E0ocGL3i rQTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Wvyi6987fTHftLhRUZp6ZpSasdIaedCoT/U7WgTStCr4WZLUk RnbBdWR1WNwj4CWhC2qfrbb9OTVt1D3BacPDlc0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwRZ7zj9AZKRmSW+DDEYskAecCSNPRvAjspl8x4YVFIzOEl1ZQ0ud71vUFrCunLER83zF4I5A==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4081:: with SMTP id f1mr20235539qko.203.1620603752899; Sun, 09 May 2021 16:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2607:f2c0:e784:c7:4d00:59d0:f71c:4891]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p14sm5894426qki.27.2021.05.09.16.42.31 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 09 May 2021 16:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sun, 09 May 2021 19:42:30 -0400
Message-Id: <3EE971EE-0777-44D6-9CD2-771B92FFE938@hopcount.ca>
References: <F4CE48A1-7AB0-45D0-97FF-158CE3A04EE1@icann.org>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <F4CE48A1-7AB0-45D0-97FF-158CE3A04EE1@icann.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18E212)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/FKyEC7TTl_PK85SU2ElgC19SYcQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-05.txt
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: Sun, 09 May 2021 23:42:40 -0000

On May 9, 2021, at 19:27, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:

> If I'm wrong about this being as good as it can be, there must be an item delimiter that is better than a comma. I am not thinking creatively enough to figure out what might be better than a comma. I'd be happy to hear proposals for a better item delimiter. 

I am quite behind on this topic, but I presume there's a reason to put all these key-value pairs in a list in one RR?

If we compare the two fictional RRTypes EG1 and EG2 illustrated below:

example.com. EG1 key1=value1,key2=value2,...

example.com. EG2 key1 value1
example.com. EG2 key2 value2

It seems to me that EG2 avoids the need for delimiters at all. There's a bit of overhead resulting from the need for a larger RRSet but it's not obvious that that's a problem. 

If the SvcParams field of the SVCB RR was a domain name rather than an explicit list this would all look a lot more DNS-like as far as parsing goes. This would also allow a single set of SvcParams key-value pairs to be included in different service bindings without having to be sent each time or to be bound to something provided a service provider (SVB in customer.org zone that refers to SvcParams.provider.com) giving the provider some ability to maintain some aspects of the service).

Perhaps this horse has already sailed but I thought I'd mention it. 


Joe