> Would an SVCB record (or more likely a derivative, like HTTPS is > a subclass) be appropriate for this use case with something like > a service parameter key of error_ttl? This might allow for the > (inevitable?) scope creep when some one says we have an error TTL > but now also want parameter X. Just a thought.
That might be taking the concept too far. We already have a mechanism for associating data with errors. RFC 8914 (Extended DNS Errors) works quite well. We can easily allocate more EDNS(0) options. For the TTL I tried to make it as easy as possible for both the client and the server. No need for complex parsing. No risk of confusion between the record that specifies the TTL and other records. Putting the TTL in an SVCB parameter requires support for dealing with SVCB-style records, something that certainly not all DNS software has. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
