Well 2 is a DNS requirement from the word dot.  I’m surprised any DNS developer 
would not know that. It allows records to pass through servers that don’t know 
the rdata fields structure. 

-- 
Mark Andrews

> On 17 Jun 2020, at 22:57, libor.peltan <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> i'm a developer of Knot DNS authoritative server. I have some comments on the 
> SVCB draft and some suggestions for improvements. Just consider my thoughts 
> and then do whatever is best.
> 
> (1) The format of SVCB (and HTTPS) RR is too complicated, especially for 
> parsing presentation format to wireformat and back, including consistency 
> checks. Perhaps instead of
> 
> www 3600 IN HTTPS 1 . alpn=h2 port=8443
> 
> It could be
> 
> www 3600 IN HTTPS 1 . alpn h2
>                   1 . port 8443
> 
> Which gives slightly bigger RRSet wireformat, but not by much.
> 
> (2) Paragraph 2.2 explicitly requires that SvcDomainName must not be 
> compressed. Is there a reason? Especially when the response packets are large 
> (and I expect that for SVCB they will), any compression helps.
> 
> (3) Paragraph 2.5 contradicts itself: "SvcDomainName MUST be the name of a 
> domain that has SVCB, AAAA, or A records" versus "SvcDomainName MAY be the 
> owner of a CNAME record". What is the meaning here?
> 
> (4) Let's assume that CNAME is allowed under SvcDomainName. Paragraph 4.1 is 
> too vague and I don't see what an authoritative (not recursive!) server shall 
> answer in situation SVCB->CNAME->A (all in-bailiwick). Shall the CNAME and A 
> be added to additional section? For comparison, in situation MX->CNAME->A we 
> don't bother since this situation is forbidden (see RFC 2181).
> 
> (5) Wouldn't one octet for priority field be enough?
> 
> (6) There are not enough examples in the document. There are many variants of 
> SVCB records, the formal ABNF description is difficult to read, and it would 
> also illustrate what kind of services those records are designed to handle.
> 
> Best regards and thanks for your effort,
> 
> Libor Peltan
> CZ.NIC
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to