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

[Eric Orth <[e-mail]>]

If you split presentation format records into one record per SvcParam, that
necessitates either changing the wire format to match or structuring the
presentation and wire formats fundamentally differently with a translation
to merge those records into a single record for the wire format.  What the
records are and the relations between them is a fundamental part of the
wire format.



On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:01 PM Brian Dickson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 2:50 PM Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Are these still just idle ideas you are tossing out (as you indicated
>> earlier), or meant to be serious proposals? If the latter, what is the
>> significant improvement over the current draft? I ask because it feels like
>> you are suggesting moving the inherent complexity of the semantics of SCVB
>> around, but not noticeably reducing it overall. Unless there is a
>> significant reduction in complexity, I don't see the value of grinding on
>> this further. (I say this as someone who is not happy with the current
>> level of complexity of the semantics, but don't see a way to reduce it.)
>>
>> --Paul Hoffman
>
>
> It is meant to be a serious proposal.
> The improvement is in the clarity and parse-ability of the HTTPS record in
> zone file format, including reducing the complexity of the HTTPS-specific
> semantics, without changing the actual wire format semantics or complexity
> per se.
>
> I'm working on the details of that, but it will necessarily be its own
> work-in-progress. I hope to get something stable based on feedback... I
> don't expect to get it 100% right on the first pass.
>
> The first pass should hopefully illustrate the benefits at least, and
> justify keeping list activity ongoing.
>
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>