[rpp] Re: RPP -05 feedback

[Jasdip Singh <[e-mail]>]

One correction: For the given example, the RPP URI would be: "https://rpp.example:8443/rpp/v1…”.


From: Jasdip Singh <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, April 26, 2026 at 4:27 PM
To: Pierre Thierry <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [rpp] Re: RPP -05 feedback

Missed one point... I think Pierre is right regarding the “_rpp” label use and requiring the “rpp” URI scheme. To leverage HTTPS RR without it, we could perhaps emulate DoH’s use of the “dohpath” SvcParamKey [1], and register “rpppath” in that IANA registry [2] with a {+path} URI template [3]? For example:

  example. 3600 IN HTTPS 1 rpp.example. alpn=h2,h3 port=8443 ipv4hint=192.0.2.1 ipv6hint=2001:db8::1 rpppath="/rpp/v1/{+path}"

The RPP URI would then be: "https://example:8443/rpp/v1…" for various RPP endpoints. IIUC, this should work but good to prototype. :)

Jasdip

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9461#name-new-svcparamkey-dohpath
[2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-svcb/dns-svcb.xhtml
[3] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6570.html#page-22


From: Jasdip Singh <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, April 26, 2026 at 12:20 PM
To: Pierre Thierry <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [rpp] Re: RPP -05 feedback

Hi,

From: Pierre Thierry <[e-mail]>
Date: Saturday, April 25, 2026 at 8:19 PM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [rpp] Re: RPP -05 feedback

Le 24/04/2026 à 08:35, Maarten Wullink a écrit :
 what about if we add a special zone (e.g. _rpp) for rpp server bootstrap only and put the HTTP RR there. something like:
_rpp.example. 3600 IN HTTPS 1 rpp.example. alpn=h2,h3 port=8443

IIUC, a _rpp.example SVCB record is supposed to be used for rpp://example. I didn't see the use you suggest in RFC 9460 (a special zone for a HTTPS RR). SRV is more flexible there.

[JS] I think using HTTPS RR over SRV RR has advantages for protocols like RPP that use HTTPS as a substrate since the TLS negotiation would be more granular and efficient for the former.

Consider:

  _rpp._tcp.example. 3600 IN SRV 10 60 8443 rpp.example.

versus

  _rpp.example. 3600 IN HTTPS 1 rpp.example. alpn=h2,h3 port=8443 ipv4hint=192.0.2.1 ipv6hint=2001:db8::1

In the SRV case, a client just gets to know about the port and then do another query for the IP address (if not in the Additional Data section). In the HTTPS case, it gets all that info upfront along with HTTP2 versus HTTP3 preference when establishing the TLS connection.

Might be good to prototype both approaches to confirm.

Thanks,
Jasdip