Subject: [DNSOP] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 07:52:50 -0800

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To this DNS non-expert, I found it hard to follow the motivation for AliasMode.
In particular, I asked myself the following questions that could have been
answered in the Introduction or in (2.4.2):

- Why is it not OK for a CNAME to alias the apex, but OK for AliasMode to do
so? [having asked around, it's because CNAME aliases all the record types,
which is nonsensical for the apex, and AliasMode does not]

- For non-apex domains, under what conditions would I use AliasMode instead of
a CNAME? Is it just when I don't want to bring along record types besides A,
AAAA, and SVCB?

---

From: Ben Schwartz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 15:22:41 -0500

OK, we can add or cite an explanation (
https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/issues/373).

- For non-apex domains, under what conditions would I use AliasMode instead
> of

A SVCB record is always for a single "origin" (scheme, host, and port).  A
CNAME is for an entire name.  I would say that's the dispositive factor in
determining which one you want to use.

---

From: Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 12:26:33 -0800

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 12:22 PM Ben Schwartz <[email-masked]> wrote:

> <snip>

Roger that, let's put it in the draft.