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

Pieter Lexis <> Mon, 10 May 2021 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E423A20A7 for <>; Mon, 10 May 2021 08:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5XOcMbObAGV3 for <>; Mon, 10 May 2021 08:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A04C3A20B0 for <>; Mon, 10 May 2021 08:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5201314CA for <>; Mon, 10 May 2021 17:23:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uTz90d1pcC2R for <>; Mon, 10 May 2021 17:23:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2001:980:5650:0:3497:baa5:45e4:395]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A62D304 for <>; Mon, 10 May 2021 17:23:03 +0200 (CEST)
References: <> <>
From: Pieter Lexis <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 17:23:03 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-05.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 15:23:18 -0000

Hi Joe,

On 5/10/21 1:42 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> On May 9, 2021, at 19:27, Paul Hoffman <> 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:
> EG1 key1=value1,key2=value2,...
> EG2 key1 value1
> 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 proble>
> 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 zone that refers to giving the provider some ability to maintain some aspects of the service).

You then invite the following issues:

Clients need to match the tuple (ownername + prio + target) and get all
data from all matched rrsets, whereas now you get all that data in one
piece of rdata.

A client also can't figure out (if not doing DNSSEC valdiation
themselves) if you have received all the SVC data for a certain name.