On May 9, 2021, at 19:27, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote:
> If I'm wrong about this being as good as it can be, there must be an item > delimiter that is better than a comma. I am not thinking creatively enough to > figure out what might be better than a comma. I'd be happy to hear proposals > for a better item delimiter. I am quite behind on this topic, but I presume there's a reason to put all these key-value pairs in a list in one RR? If we compare the two fictional RRTypes EG1 and EG2 illustrated below: example.com. EG1 key1=value1,key2=value2,... example.com. EG2 key1 value1 example.com. EG2 key2 value2 It seems to me that EG2 avoids the need for delimiters at all. There's a bit of overhead resulting from the need for a larger RRSet but it's not obvious that that's a problem. If the SvcParams field of the SVCB RR was a domain name rather than an explicit list this would all look a lot more DNS-like as far as parsing goes. This would also allow a single set of SvcParams key-value pairs to be included in different service bindings without having to be sent each time or to be bound to something provided a service provider (SVB in customer.org zone that refers to SvcParams.provider.com) giving the provider some ability to maintain some aspects of the service). Perhaps this horse has already sailed but I thought I'd mention it. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
