On Mar 23, 2021, at 7:16 AM, Brian Haberman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey Paul, > Clarifying question about SVCB... > > On 3/22/21 5:10 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On Mar 22, 2021, at 1:59 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> I think that makes sense with one caveat: I don't interpret >>> these changes as representing a consensus to not use TLSA - I >>> think such a decision is still down the road some, after we >>> have some better ideas as to the practicality or otherwise >>> of the various approaches one might adopt. >>> >>> I know none of these are WG drafts yet but I'd be a bit >>> worried that your changing to use SVCB now might be >>> intrepreted in that way. >> >> Good point. As we revise this draft, we can put a note in about us needing a >> signal, and use SCVB as the signal, but the signal might change. >> > > Is there an issue with putting SVCB info in the TLD zones? If I > interpret this ICANN document correctly > (https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.html#exhibitA.1), > there are strict limitations on the info that can be put in the TLD zones.
There are currently such limitations, and only in gTLDs. If the IETF creates a standard that would cause zone owners to want additional record types in their zones, I suspect that the technical and gTLD operator communities will talk to ICANN about changing the contracts. Said a different way: if this WG wants to have a mechanism for authoritative discovery that involves adding new glue-like records in parent zones, it should not be constrained by current contracts that could be changed in the future. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
