All I'd like to circle around as chair and call this discussion illuminating. I do feel that there is rough consensus to keep with the current format. The discussion here has gone down the path of wholesale redesign.
We call the WGLC closed for now. The authors have an updated document to publish, and Ben's current suggestion can be taken into account. Thanks for the discussion. I plan on including this thread in the shepherd's writeup for the IESG to review. tim On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 9:35 PM Ben Schwartz <bemasc= 40google....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 7:49 AM Tommy Pauly <tpauly= > 40apple....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> I like Erik’s suggestion that we solve the issues with parsing by putting >> more rules and constraints of the set of available characters, etc. >> > > I don't get the impression that the TLS working group is likely to reach a > consensus to formally restrict the allowed characters in ALPN values. > However, there are currently no "problematic characters" in any of the > registered ALPN values, and it seems very likely to me that there never > will be. With that gray area in mind, I have attempted to thread the > needle with the following proposed change: > https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/pull/325/files. The key > sentence is: > > > So long as there are no registered protocol identifiers containing "," > or "\\", zone file implementations MAY disallow these characters instead of > implementing the `value-list` escaping procedure. > > I'm sure this is no one's favorite option, but perhaps it is good enough > to enable us to move forward. > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
