My preference would be the change in 289.  Maximizes keeping things open
for future protocols rather than attempting to predict the needs of the
protocols.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:02 PM Ben Schwartz <bemasc=
[email protected]> wrote:

> FWIW, I think this is really an editorial question.  The SVCB draft lays
> out how we expect SVCB to be used initially, but there are very few
> constraints on how some future protocol specification could make use of the
> RR type.  That includes the various possible fallback behaviors.
>
> I'm happy to adjust the text for clarity on this point.  Here are two
> alternatives for how to clarify the text:
>
> 1. Specify the expected behavior of future SVCB-reliant protocols (which
> do not yet exist):
> https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/pull/288
>
> 2. Clarify that this section's recommendations are only defaults, and
> future protocols can do whatever they want:
> https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/pull/289
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 6:43 PM Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As requested (I'm not engaged here enough to understand the terms of
>> engagement, so my apologies for using an interaction form I'm accustomed
>> to), moving discussion from
>> https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/issues/287 to here:
>>
>> The SVCB draft basically mandates a fallback to A/AAAA.  I think that
>> this is not universal and that this should instead be made an option.
>>
>> For HTTP, the fallback is necessary.  For a new protocol, a fallback
>> could be undesirable.  Especially if you want to deploy that protocol using
>> a service name on which you have already deployed HTTP.  If you don't want
>> your HTTP servers getting connection attempts for the new protocol, the
>> fallback is more nuisance than useful.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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