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

[Miek Gieben <[e-mail]>]

[ Quoting <bemasc=40google.com@dmarc> in "Re: [DNSOP] SVCB wire format (draft..." ]
>Hi Miek,
>
>The wire format is the same for AliasForm and ServiceForm, exactly as you
>describe.  What do you think is different?

Because of this text:

  o the SvcFieldValue byte string, consuming the remainder of the
    record (so smaller than 65535 octets and constrained by the RDATA
    and DNS message sizes).

vs:

   o  a 2 octet field containing the SvcParamKey as an integer in
      network byte order.

   o  a 2 octet field containing the length of the SvcParamValue as an
      integer between 0 and 65535 in network byte order (but constrained
      by the RDATA and DNS message sizes).

   o  an octet string of the length defined by the previous field.


My reading of this is that for ServiceForm there will always be 4 octets and for AliasForm
it may just be empty.

>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).

What's the reason behind not reusing the TXT record? To free-form? Other issues?


/Miek

--
Miek Gieben