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

Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de> Thu, 20 May 2021 10:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dns@fl1ger.de>
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 84F033A0E6C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 May 2021 03:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
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, 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 EGO7mdIZ4SQ4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 May 2021 03:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.guxx.net (nyx.guxx.net [85.10.208.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE903A0E6D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 May 2021 03:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix, from userid 107) id 2E1975F4059A; Thu, 20 May 2021 10:37:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [100.64.0.1] (p4fc21d7b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.194.29.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 654085F4059A; Thu, 20 May 2021 10:37:08 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Ralf Weber" <dns@fl1ger.de>
To: "Brian Dickson" <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
Cc: "Martin Thomson" <mt@lowentropy.net>, WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 12:37:07 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <1A6728DB-72CB-425E-90D7-38159DC8D4FB@fl1ger.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAH1iCirdY4HWj1o8X3mEkPJODrQZ391YsuC75Hs5m5G4PM3ATA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7ADF1FB2-97A4-4C49-8F25-8BF03BE01640@hopcount.ca> <20210512213903.D5F1F7AA827@ary.qy> <CAMOjQcFJjcsvaREF0fr+2GTY4zTy5CxSxR16BEp=Nc-K9WJ0Tg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCipAVKVCuH2ME=+YpeJyijrKCtzJaU3bRFyy1f48EB33iw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbrMsCjWgV7nc575L_qdvr7HdoEVKqkXRwLdXA2L5NiCgdvwA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCipW_-BSMQZ-S+m18pyzfxTGsCrmG9Pc-b35_VRiLhxh4w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbrMsDvEkYAxee4xjW5LsQmr0PgBf+UmMAuME-_UvRMg4jJeA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCiq4zJZBv5=f7T2EDRWKa7bAZx66SMKkf+AiDsDPTZokhQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbrMsAW_wtKmRDYKZVUrFLZYuM_DqoS-8VRMf-O0Z8WpPBfbg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJj3nPAZp=qpwjBJ_3yG_EO-q-bcJbaizUNw9uq6deVZjg@mail.gmail.com> <C3734365-D5F7-4F9A-A463-5EFBB841A583@apple.com> <CAH1iCiod61M5aHnF_qrpP6=Oc3nBL+McaSui5NUnLd1GbS=okw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCipcjnHdBcc7VCpLr9rP6vbbTHKYPHtqBkQu_achzpohcg@mail.gmail.com> <D10F7DCD-71AE-4AFC-9835-C9E1F03D831F@icann.org> <CAH1iCiphr71C0MjhP-amR4S5FpDzKc4qkDvsU3qMXhdLNhiwyw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCiqSFk0XP_We+cUfe0xFvmDMusPc3weHxSK-e5CLT6jLwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJhH=OK_mraWK1pVEx6a_hiPSPF-KQwd+mDy_2mg_a17CQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCip=Y0MTh4=ATqWPdWSDot4dmBge96Y-cdL86hk3dk3ddg@mail.gmail.com> <9a138693-60a0-4b75-99f5-6a7544f935a0@www.fastmail.com> <CAH1iCirdY4HWj1o8X3mEkPJODrQZ391YsuC75Hs5m5G4PM3ATA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/GE6JCdq5zoYY4vwb91-B3TGRmHY>
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: Thu, 20 May 2021 10:37:19 -0000

Moin!

On 20 May 2021, at 3:32, Brian Dickson wrote:
> (There's a reason I'm not suggesting making SVCB non-extensible, or
> touching any aspect of the SVCB thing itself.)
>
> Note that more ALPN values are supported, and how those are
> defined/used/etc are really not relevant to the structure (wire format) of
> the records (HTTPS or SVCB).
>
> HTTPS needs transport, port number, name, and maybe some hints for IP
> addresses, plus the new encrypted SNI.
Well if we created HTTPS five years ago we would not have known about
encrypted client helo. The point of an extensible format is that you
can extend it beyond what you know now. And I am pretty sure there will
be development in the HTTPS arena.

For me mentally HTTPS is just a shortcut for
	_https.name IN SVCB …
so on the right side HTTPS and SVCB are the same and we should keep it
that way IMHO.

So long
-Ralf