Moin!
On 20 May 2021, at 3:32, Brian Dickson wrote:
> (There's a reason I'm not suggesting making SVCB non-extensible, or
> touching any aspect of the SVCB thing itself.)
>
> Note that more ALPN values are supported, and how those are
> defined/used/etc are really not relevant to the structure (wire format) of
> the records (HTTPS or SVCB).
>
> HTTPS needs transport, port number, name, and maybe some hints for IP
> addresses, plus the new encrypted SNI.
Well if we created HTTPS five years ago we would not have known about
encrypted client helo. The point of an extensible format is that you
can extend it beyond what you know now. And I am pretty sure there will
be development in the HTTPS arena.
For me mentally HTTPS is just a shortcut for
_https.name IN SVCB …
so on the right side HTTPS and SVCB are the same and we should keep it
that way IMHO.
So long
-Ralf
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
