IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz> Tue, 11 May 2021 11:08 UTC

Return-Path: <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz>
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 4E8D83A10B7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2021 04:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 JB3uYyr2NC7k for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2021 04:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (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 C645B3A10AD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 May 2021 04:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:768:2d1c:226::a2e] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:768:2d1c:226::a2e]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E8AC140AF2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 May 2021 13:08:48 +0200 (CEST)
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <F4CE48A1-7AB0-45D0-97FF-158CE3A04EE1@icann.org> <3EE971EE-0777-44D6-9CD2-771B92FFE938@hopcount.ca> <1d822219-8ab9-2cb7-d0a4-9b8afc39058d@powerdns.com> <2952D408-117B-40D0-B859-7A8E4111629E@hopcount.ca> <CAHbrMsD+uiaYQ8i58VRjF=3AtW9uAoAtgbKzNzrPZC3QCmD2pQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCirykCpqkQEizYUBYMJEXMYRGkWvnzyo-jP=XOT-4fP-EA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <9944ea1f-5ecd-3acd-ed2b-bbb663159894@nic.cz>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 13:08:48 +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: <CAH1iCirykCpqkQEizYUBYMJEXMYRGkWvnzyo-jP=XOT-4fP-EA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------51BB3B5A0CCB08FAAFDD3F1A"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/dtW4hiCSdCKKFW6CJ801_6N-tQY>
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: Tue, 11 May 2021 11:08:57 -0000

On 11. 05. 21 1:59, Brian Dickson wrote:
> IMNSHO, it'll be faster to discard any existing parsing code, and 
> embrace this as the Zone File format (and wire format) going forward.

I think that would imply burning the currently allocated RRtype code 
pair and requesting a new pair from IANA.  Not unthinkable, but somewhat 
costly; just noting.  I'm not even 100% sure whether we could really 
reuse the allocated "SVCB" and "HTTPS" names if their wire-format changes.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email