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

Ben Schwartz <> Sat, 15 May 2021 01:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF0453A0DC6 for <>; Fri, 14 May 2021 18:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, 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, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hAihW20RhXGU for <>; Fri, 14 May 2021 18:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F01F33A0DC2 for <>; Fri, 14 May 2021 18:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 82-20020a1c01550000b0290142562ff7c9so542724wmb.3 for <>; Fri, 14 May 2021 18:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AMXujDgvweUGeHr6x30kCylSN4ayVPr8MRjt5tfTSH0=; b=BvU5CXVGtRgof8XhcmknXJ0wg8fk7PmStjY8fjw0iX+ZdrRkEZf+rUCaJ7m+DNDMy6 TEWojPMiY7djMh8JHwMErKLSBuhekOh38bOH6cKGNypB3WkZexmR3/8+ToUlT8yZIfl5 jGv79G8lUrkZan1LAvCaRb3D/zvyEH6qGkF0Wdgp9cAw8r7LmgIh0fdeqQBQ8OiVVhFE Q4S8CS+j2VyIopqDzLJYG+3cqUHKTu+Fkw/lyXAAxdfyKSZhw4Bh7sAsRnSFSsetcr8T opVpwSUgWjHh+5kTFKdeB6BAe0IdA/MVuiecXI02pvTXtM6XiwbKEj1C4/7mku9amFfa pgBQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AMXujDgvweUGeHr6x30kCylSN4ayVPr8MRjt5tfTSH0=; b=fmLpgLWOyB3SunJs4NhTVSyXE3NoAGBDd9lSn/2HnCoHuljsb/cvj1IMdCXc2/LK7v BL27+gQxPd3ZQXdgc9lTylkbl9UYsY5VomqOKMm/Ogj08Ocjv24MfXgQPJdGMyx2G3sl CBUANIW/Xodn5puwobF+MGG+g+Z1AEDdoFxOXxmxFI1vLBmmJ6iHNXtYCkYTO3JpulSk F/Rai2wdp4/Upe6D1DCvkuAQMxbMvgerkCZYJGjvrD2QekfEdlbq3/JWKEnmt5HT1sEI ogQ00yCZhRsnij8/KaKGMhxJ+xrt49dmUgcB8SoQ56C/Wn8Q/0xy6lqQEbLTlypifqTw X6AQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532FHy7CCSVjG2GZGlYxh8KoRaQjta2/UKhz5Lytq7HMJ5lu1rRM FRYGUVGNzL6/2O1vlpS0GiThTB3GMAeY9Qa5coU/aJChZWE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdITwl212XK5IFx/duCDgpQQB70Oxt610hAzifk7LJ3X4+Wcc8zanktLO2XiGckZtywVqZdg6wUiKQtNLvcQI=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c196:: with SMTP id y22mr52709956wmi.1.1621041029098; Fri, 14 May 2021 18:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <20210515004716.8726E7D082E@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20210515004716.8726E7D082E@ary.qy>
From: Ben Schwartz <>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 18:10:16 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: John Levine <>
Cc: dnsop <>, Brian Dickson <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="000000000000ba34ec05c254069f"
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: Sat, 15 May 2021 01:10:37 -0000

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 5:48 PM John Levine <> wrote:

> If the users are going to copy and paste, they might
> as well copy a base64 blob and not worry about making it easy to read.
> The wire format can be the same as what it is now.

Thanks to RFC 3597, there's no need to define opaque zone file formats for
new records.  Opaque input (in hex) is always an option, so the
type-specific zone file format can be something more legible, and RFC 3597
format is always available as a fallback if the type-specialized format
isn't implemented in some system.

BTW, SVCB does define a way to represent parameters in wire format verbatim
(e.g. key4=\192\000\002\001), in case a new SvcParamKey is not supported by
a particular implementation.