Hi Ben, Thanks for your reply. Some additional thoughts inline. Francesca From: iesg <[email protected]> on behalf of Ben Schwartz <[email protected]> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 5:13 PM Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote:
OK. I've noted the instances you've identified at https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/issues/355 FP: Thank you. ...
I've attempted to answer questions inline, and tracked the other comments at https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/issues/372. ...
Yes, this section highlights some requirements but does not include any normative language. Any normative requirements mentioned in this section are defined normatively elsewhere in the document.
OK, we can add more forward references to this section. (Tracked at https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/issues/371.)
This section of the introduction is just an overview, for a reader who is not familiar with SVCB. The detailed specification of encodings, formats, and other requirements is later in the document. FP: Thanks, I added a note in the github with a suggestion on text – basically removing “non-normative manner”.
Ordering is unspecified in presentation format, but must be sorted in wire format.
This "MAY" is intended as an exception to "Clients SHOULD try higher-priority alternatives first" in Section 3. FP: You don’t need to add this as a BCP 14 “MAY”, as “SHOULD” already allows for exceptions, and again this text is only describing an example, so in my opinion should not be adding requirements but just describe behavior.
Section 2.1 notes that "SvcParams are a whitespace-separated list". The SvcParamValue for "mandatory" is a comma-separated list ("key65444,ech"). FP: Thanks, I missed it.
There are many protocols that are "layered on top" of HTTP in some fashion, e.g. generating an HTTP URL and performing an HTTP connection as part of some process. This text was originally written for WebSocket (wss://), but it could also potentially apply to something like MTA-STS, which generates an HTTP URL to fetch information about a mail server. The SHOULD applies primarily to implementers of such protocols, who may need to configure their HTTP implementations appropriately. I think the word "respected" was used because HTTPS-record support is optional for HTTP in general. The point here is that HTTPS records are applicable to such "embedded" instances of HTTP, and should not be ignored merely because HTTP is not the "top layer" protocol. FP: I see, thank you for the clarification – it makes sense. I’ll leave it up to you if you think some wording (such as the one you just wrote above) might help the reader, or leave it as is. |
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
