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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Wed, 21 April 2021 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.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 D8A663A352C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 hVJLQf8ikIrj for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (ppa3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42F513A3529 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.5]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 13LKIEcB017139 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 20:18:14 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.858.5; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:18:13 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.0858.010; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:18:13 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-05.txt
Thread-Index: AQHXNut0/b51UzFWIESthUDh8VKCcA==
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 20:18:13 +0000
Message-ID: <80539395-F1F6-4BA1-8AFF-667DDF7604B1@icann.org>
References: <161901308063.21005.875603362157576926@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHbrMsA4TMfE+3LAT+un0FF3DGXKsYB1zAtvUwf2YKr97mJ+sQ@mail.gmail.com> <87B615B4-9CA3-4060-93C2-E4B953C11FB2@akamai.com> <CAHbrMsDaqrQ+XDO4z395tC_yOH4MBH8OmoH8zTXWEHfcDC1+Ew@mail.gmail.com> <6245BB4F-4E2F-435F-ABC0-18C0420C8541@akamai.com> <CAHbrMsDGq0usDiqr0HtbFCR4Y8swtyv_0i7UOFf=C_ExW+0FNQ@mail.gmail.com> <303AD4A1-A9BE-4C31-B730-7B4D42587206@akamai.com> <CAHbrMsCj8OToEhjo7O0YkW4WGosGK7stBYTneYHUoX_KckY7Uw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbrMsCj8OToEhjo7O0YkW4WGosGK7stBYTneYHUoX_KckY7Uw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E12388A6-57EE-40F1-AD70-17CC347AD17C"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-21_05:2021-04-21, 2021-04-21 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Lne474R1M2dw_xMciyMedY-h4F8>
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: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 20:18:19 -0000

On Apr 21, 2021, at 12:51 PM, Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Here's a proposed text change that I hope can satisfy both of our requirements: https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/pull/319
> 
> The key sentence is:
> 
> To ensure compatibility with complex SvcParam specifications, recursive resolvers MAY validate the values of recognized SvcParamKeys, but MUST NOT reject the record on this basis unless a value is obviously invalid.

Obvious to whom? "I know it when I see it" is not a good way to make standards. Also, validating SvcParamKeys does not ensure compatibility with complex SvcParam specifications. 

A different, simpler proposal:

   Recursive resolvers MAY validate the values of recognized SvcParamKeys
   in a record, and MAY reject records with invalid SvcParamKeys. 

--Paul Hoffman