Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-05.txt

2021-04-21 Thread Wellington, Brian
That looks good to me. Brian On Apr 21, 2021, at 12:51 PM, Ben Schwartz mailto:bemasc=40google@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Here's a proposed text change that I hope can satisfy both of our requirements: https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/pull/319 The key sentence is: To ensure compat

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-05.txt

2021-04-21 Thread Wellington, Brian
On Apr 21, 2021, at 11:58 AM, Ben Schwartz mailto:bemasc=40google@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 1:24 PM Wellington, Brian mailto:40akamai@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Yes, I think that sentence should be changed. I’d suggest removing the "malformed SvcParamValues” part

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-05.txt

2021-04-21 Thread Wellington, Brian
Yes, I think that sentence should be changed. I’d suggest removing the "malformed SvcParamValues” part, but others may disagree. I agree that a URL is a tricky case. The spec writer might not want to include an ABNF representation of a valid URL, because implementors would likely want to use

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-05.txt

2021-04-21 Thread Petr Špaček
On 21. 04. 21 19:00, Ben Schwartz wrote: On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:44 PM Wellington, Brian > wrote: I’m not a fan of the new text in section 4.3: Recursive resolvers MUST be able to convey SVCB records with unrecognized SvcParamKeys or m

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-05.txt

2021-04-21 Thread Wellington, Brian
I’m not a fan of the new text in section 4.3: Recursive resolvers MUST be able to convey SVCB records with unrecognized SvcParamKeys or malformed SvcParamValues. It is perfectly reasonable for a recursive resolver to reject any malformed DNS record. There’s a significant difference between “ma

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-05.txt

2021-04-21 Thread Ben Schwartz
Thanks for all the great input during WGLC. Here's the changelog for the latest draft: * Specify interaction with EDNS Client Subnet and Additional section caching * Rename "echconfig" to "ech" * Add a suite of test vectors (both valid and invalid) and more examples * Clarify requirements for res