Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Questions / concerns with draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https (in RFC Editor queue)

[Viktor Dukhovni <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 03:06:45PM +0000, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> > If no AliasMode record was processed, then $QNAME would be the
> > origin name PLUS the prefix(es) of type attrleaf ( underscore
> > thingies). Those won't be legitimate A/AAAA owner names (and
> > shouldn't exist), and if a client did that it would be harmful (to
> > the client), at least a little bit harmful (trying something that
> > won't work.)
> 
> If this proposed change is only for something that is a bit harmful to
> the client (trying something that won't work), then I don't think this
> reaches the bar for making a change after IETF and IESG evaluation.
> The amount of process work that is necessary to make this technical
> change far outweighs the advantage to clients who are unaware of the
> problem that this thread has exposed.

This is a bug fix, the proposed behaviour makes no sense when $QNAME
is the unaltered (attrleaf prefixed) starting point.  The current
meaning was not intended.  If the edit can be made without any
major process, just a note to the RFC editor, it'll save errata,
and possible confusion later.

The document is on hold anyway, the fix is elementary and obvious.  I am
not a process wonk, I'm happy to let those who are go at it.  With the
suggested change made, I'm done.

-- 
    Viktor.