Re: [DNSOP] port number in HTTPSSVC

2020-01-03 Thread Rob Sayre
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 1:01 PM Paul Vixie wrote: > On Friday, 3 January 2020 20:01:04 UTC Erik Kline wrote: > > I think removing port number flexibility might unduly constrain some data > > center use cases where service reachability might not have the more > common > > 443-only limitations. > >

Re: [DNSOP] port number in HTTPSSVC

2020-01-03 Thread Christian Huitema
Most of the early tests of QUIC were using port 4433, not 443. Using alternate ports for testing is very common. -- Christian Huitema On 1/3/2020 10:01 AM, Erik Kline wrote: > I think removing port number flexibility might unduly constrain some > data center use cases where service reachability m

Re: [DNSOP] port number in HTTPSSVC

2020-01-03 Thread Paul Vixie
On Friday, 3 January 2020 20:01:04 UTC Erik Kline wrote: > I think removing port number flexibility might unduly constrain some data > center use cases where service reachability might not have the more common > 443-only limitations. "think" and "might" are unpersuasive, and "unduly" is subjective

Re: [DNSOP] port number in HTTPSSVC

2020-01-03 Thread Eric Rescorla
I agree. I do not think we should make this change. -Ekr On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 12:02 PM Erik Kline wrote: > I think removing port number flexibility might unduly constrain some data > center use cases where service reachability might not have the more common > 443-only limitations. > > On Fri

Re: [DNSOP] port number in HTTPSSVC

2020-01-03 Thread Erik Kline
I think removing port number flexibility might unduly constrain some data center use cases where service reachability might not have the more common 443-only limitations. On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 11:33 AM Ben Schwartz wrote: > HTTPSSVC co-editor here. > > The effect of this change seems similar to

[DNSOP] port number in HTTPSSVC

2020-01-03 Thread Paul Vixie
in SRV we added a port number to the rdata because the /etc/services file was painful to keep globally updated. SRV was protocol independent. HTTPSSVC is protocol specific, and when it copied SRV, it included the port number in the rdata, which i think is both unnecessary and error-prone. manag

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

2020-01-03 Thread Mark Andrews
There are 0 or more sub TLV fields. -- Mark Andrews > On 3 Jan 2020, at 18:47, Miek Gieben wrote: > > [ Quoting 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 di