On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:18:20AM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:
> > 1. SVCB -> SRVLOC
> > 2. HTTPSSVC -> HTTPLOC
>
> Unfortunately these are similar to the fun but rarely-used LOC record:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1876
>
> And also similar to the even less-frequently used NIMLOC record
>
> http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/nimrod/dns.txt
>
> Not necessarily a complete veto, but definitely a mark against
> SRVLOC/HTTPLOC, I think.
FWIW, I don't see any opportunity for confusion, especially given how
little these others are used. The idea is that something less cryptic
than a "B" suffix is better at conveying the purpose of the record.
Some similarity is harmless if there's no chance of confusion, and
the primary feature of the new record is an explicit "location",
the other key/value pairs are optional elements.
That said, if you don't like LOC, a related variant is:
- SRVCONF
- HTTPCONF
Which is configuration information about a generic service and an
HTTP service, but this loses precision, because configuration does
not capture the prominence of redirection to a new location.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
