IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] SVCB wire format (draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-01)

Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> Thu, 02 January 2020 18:09 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 EFB671200B4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 10:09:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.499 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, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 rpEJqVlmLoIK for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 10:09:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (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 EE8F3120090 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 10:09:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id v18so39094487iol.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 10:09:22 -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; bh=aRfD49uiIiFpZP6LYby8PLxk6gMEJp9KAcCecARHIsU=; b=B8BCtdDYCCetloFRVsM4C7gnaO5uILDaQ/Ot0TdW1qGngicgdvxAF44yVEnCS/cnCm 5Y2E4+5PkPumMcZOBSIxyXmZFx8LgzY8uyCXK5z/uv0U24Sd+68SdyP2/3M6gXmSwgy1 aVuJFu22HQNKN8ci0HIoWemBOBRyq9qlXB/aDA6o7IupSHswc7shkmhKXZYbOMnCNScF P8tT+jwd2A1nAmUXQZUHOhHScqfmxUyBuLzlD2pmHQUXP6MOBcmHJDTs423fC4Aq3X8A bs5W1viPk2Z+EiHJCK1r8yuN2KrQudysNscjoABdFy/XwHFm1uzNdZqeHffWx+R6jfwY +q3w==
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; bh=aRfD49uiIiFpZP6LYby8PLxk6gMEJp9KAcCecARHIsU=; b=ecEJrE67HGzuMsO+knS0oaQpxIwvS2+d9dpm6d0aZ9koBczy6U6Tc0S/orNc4AUjsz 3iVTSAtmG7CnHhEYzSKrLNtQaO06UvoGKRgQlZy3zFjFWrCy33A5o5J5xYW/m0ygDjcG TBIu5NG1QhSJKvymwJczqakXn0EduhZWfFAdRVo7ElG3CNN5uQPbL5YzTCazzKbxcUrc WW2Z6wbY4AIYNwRZtk3FOrWWoFvIAqy0tDiJa2TEOhLe0aaS0I6rGuWBzkNqIt+O+jKM uLUQUf8IaI7gFelsi3QxmFHgnKx7ZPDbfiARq1hn3ekmyop714H0UvLpRVBc+RS895fU ibfg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUpvhvSIvRKlA3Qw5dDz51IISg1LjXuifF+V+GP1cp7uSUmlkuR g7kTZqhhI1TFGjnqEup7MP6I4o4qCUGH769AsCBC0S/t
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxAoBwXgIKSEa7lXH9tptZ9cJGHQXoXisv3Zck2BIZIMa9hvt65O0wJ0LczvllUEX/LJwC81yDGhxQ1TNjgKN0=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:7117:: with SMTP id q23mr53847437iog.153.1577988561740; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 10:09:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191229091748.GA11415@miek.nl>
In-Reply-To: <20191229091748.GA11415@miek.nl>
From: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 13:09:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHbrMsD3gd3n4aLf4u-UdiP+6kaM4DKvCuvwB2RNfOCApZne+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="000000000000b75d0c059b2c17ea"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/oG-gTB6OBEqpbE7XY89CZKmhkr4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] SVCB wire format (draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-01)
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: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 18:09:25 -0000

Hi Miek,

The wire format is the same for AliasForm and ServiceForm, exactly as you
describe.  What do you think is different?

Note that the wire format is definitely not yet final.  For example,
there's still some active discussion about precisely how to represent the
contents of the SvcFieldValue (in ServiceForm).

On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 4:18 AM Miek Gieben <miek@miek.nl> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm looking into implementing the SVCB RR, and I'm wondering about the
> rational
> to make the wire format different between AliasForm and ServiceForm?
>
> Wouldn't it be simpler to always use the ServiceForm's wire format, but
> have a
> zero key and zero value? I.e. 0 0, these MUST then be ignored for the
> presentation format (handwaving the actual text for the draft here a bit).
>
> /Miek
>
> --
> Miek Gieben
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email