Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-02.txt

Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> Tue, 05 January 2021 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <bemasc@google.com>
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 C76EE3A09E9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 14:26:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.97
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.97 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.373, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 uYjdB66hbltA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 14:26:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd32.google.com (mail-io1-xd32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BCAB3A09E8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 14:26:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd32.google.com with SMTP id q137so851570iod.9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:26:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1Q6FlopHrt2nW8Wc9K5Oc4pLp08H079XbwbJ8UB15bI=; b=c5p+07Ow022ubrhpy3HiLFvUl2aF2I7V4nWi1Z47K/zdecHyRLGN3Zw0Aao3n+f1ep mgmK9vv1pflAZefuWRBWPLIew74HrNyIiZ0NMlDsFan2SkT9hOxrks1kc+OSjuFir+lY cc0U6aLBop7fBRJwsdv+BQqULONPNb19n0RvoKoqmw1VemcWlFVb4YteuKoD082bLjuE OzkjRJu1ksGrJUnokZ25ZN2BIA27IhiXj1B2ZaGgOtWAevRk5h+ZC9vvLlx2c4vEdUGx aRpQu6nw5WKkA9eCYq8DLAC6UW2WQVniQPbWtcBPpJaeAXKWoA3b/nd0VXJG/TXxjTqP rAnA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1Q6FlopHrt2nW8Wc9K5Oc4pLp08H079XbwbJ8UB15bI=; b=fdY0cdEXNc5dsYBqZxvRQCteAj9Eb5MYruQ7sOw57lx897IZQKvf/9l/Mx14yMwzhc fBALgWhB4o3spwcar9tlRJa0qziDTRdZOBe49YYb/qGMxaZS1ZfOqin+aqZ9Wl36q1bH 6xCzKeBoC46I7vAhVCV0TUr7nWPAxoRWUuYqqpywEKCDl8YL48EZX6jRUCsibxx7IHEP qkg/o78/X5nTRwAmk311sHNzqwSU5DXChtW8TuD3BS0t7OuEUHBh33y0NwgR/lk7AK7Z NTKUmC74ttgNzsyv/Xyhe02zqfwNKNLm0Effn51M/pa1hFooK+2tw8kpWXW4QhWX+Ksj 0j/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530MfcLiZ7qFlAVvYv0Grf/6IaKIRo73S/M89fqS4Y/D4+ZKC1zY juPLVOOcnxsxD2GUYWPM9mRIFW75ZM3ZV/grHqBE9w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzxmVrNPSHy3tAmO0lHquy6n88BiphAfK0KQX3SokIWrQsaeA9Ph5JtneQMo1z0ONHzYOhxP6/sxbfAdg3RFd4=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:8606:: with SMTP id z6mr922851ioj.91.1609885564393; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:26:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160435342340.5690.11246183519764836508@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHbrMsCfxhv_fiSMuZNb+Rx=p_oa-Z682sAj8D4y7YkAf0=Lgg@mail.gmail.com> <500fe764-612b-a7d6-3d2c-efbf02d1b75c@nic.cz> <CAHbrMsDbYZ=JUGN8Cgy9Dhotzd=7Tg5iX6UyNBtEaLP-F6fF8g@mail.gmail.com> <b5334883-fed3-ce75-0ea2-faedd81a7e1b@redbarn.org>
In-Reply-To: <b5334883-fed3-ce75-0ea2-faedd81a7e1b@redbarn.org>
From: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 17:25:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHbrMsCMtr2cppFK3R_Z0Zu0GPyWHLGuByvadpL+TKx8hLm30g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Cc: "libor.peltan" <libor.peltan@nic.cz>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="00000000000037082d05b82eb1d4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/gcM7jEx_z12eQFXzbbFbX4v2Dic>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-02.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, 05 Jan 2021 22:26:07 -0000

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 5:12 PM Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:

> a small matter.
>
> Ben Schwartz wrote on 2021-01-05 09:42:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 4:39 AM libor.peltan <libor.peltan@nic.cz
> > <mailto:libor.peltan@nic.cz>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi Ben, all,
> >     i'd like to ask for some clarification of expected Authoritative
> >     server behaviour around Alias SVCB records:
> >
> >     1) when there are multiple Alias SVCB records for an owner name,
> >
> > As Section 2.4.2 says "SVCB RRSets SHOULD only have a single resource
> > record in AliasMode".  So this "should" not happen.
>
> can you specify that if it does happen, the client behaviour should be
> the same as if there are no matching records? otherwise clients will
> have degrees of freedom, which i think would not end well.
>

The current draft says "If multiple are present, clients or recursive
resolvers SHOULD pick one at random.".   I like that this leaves us the
possibility of relaxing the single-Alias-RR rule in the future, if we find
a use case for it.  Do you think this is not a suitable recommendation?