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

"libor.peltan" <libor.peltan@nic.cz> Tue, 11 May 2021 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <libor.peltan@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 7053A3A1D4B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2021 09:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 r8KzjL4oVzPs for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2021 09:27:02 -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 6605C3A1D6A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 May 2021 09:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:e270:2df9:4b92:be9a] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:e270:2df9:4b92:be9a]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B6C4140759; Tue, 11 May 2021 18:26:59 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1620750419; bh=tVzBFDF6KrPPIbOWt1PFyaHQC2hlbbWijjzfkHEQfDI=; h=To:From:Date; b=JZME4TNUY2RHtEyYzbOrPzvOsJzPbDanXC3TTcI7c7HEfOM02A87mCNi+YzWWJ5Ly WI2RhcEIn7leZMSdb1/n40EQQK1mlLTx1zIubKzIhBD7YbHhFnYh0rzsK8+fib1CJK VWVW5lP2gfx6IufsLWrulb4qK3Z6QOa3Rd6sSVzc=
To: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Cc: dnsop <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> <123fd984-a3e1-0d09-b745-9a7ed6260759@nic.cz> <CAHbrMsCrf8GS3N=HF53X-M0oq09yw_vKGFLU_qA6wt94-+vNXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "libor.peltan" <libor.peltan@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <346afc4d-f8c2-7a2b-e606-344e15230e61@nic.cz>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 18:26:59 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHbrMsCrf8GS3N=HF53X-M0oq09yw_vKGFLU_qA6wt94-+vNXg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------8E7D489CA619FF7FBF4FD6E8"
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/r1_YWpnER1U4k-wV_VdFG3o-4KQ>
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 16:27:08 -0000

Hi Ben,

Dne 11. 05. 21 v 18:08 Ben Schwartz napsal(a):
>
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 3:31 AM libor.peltan <libor.peltan@nic.cz 
> <mailto:libor.peltan@nic.cz>> wrote:
>
>     If there really is a strong reason for putting multiple key-value
>     records into one RData (instead of one RRSet), it should be
>     described somewhere clearly
>
> OK, I've proposed text documenting the reasoning here: 
> https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/pull/323/files 
> <https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/pull/323/files>.
>
> The proposed text is:
Thank you for at least this effort.
>
> Storing a key-value map within a single RR, rather than placing each 
> key-value
> pair in a separate RR, provides the following advantages:
>
> * It enables a familiar key=value zone file syntax that matches zone 
> authors'
>   experience with command-line arguments and other typical key-value 
> mappings.
> * It avoids requiring zone file authors to manage inter-pair binding IDs.
> * It makes each record independently meaningful, consistent with the usual
>   convention for DNS records (c.f. SRV, MX, AAAA, etc.).
> * It saves at least 11 bytes of overhead per parameter by avoiding 
> repetition of
>   the name, type, class, TTL, and inter-pair binding ID.

May I be wrong, but I think that name, type, class and TTL are not 
repeated in one RRSet with multiple RData. Not in wire format and not 
necessarily even in zonefile. (?)

The inter-pair binding ID would be not too large, maybe it would cancel 
out with some avoided textual dash :)

> * It provides a wire format whose structural nesting matches the 
> logical scope
>   of each key=value pair, and avoids requiring cross-RR reconstruction of
>   bindings by the client.
Libor