3 ms·
I like the idea of SVCB, but I hate the idea of there being an RR for one specific other protocol (HTTPS). DNS and HTTP[S] are complicated enough without buildi
by throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
I like the idea of SVCB, but I hate the idea of there being an RR for one specific other protocol (HTTPS). DNS and HTTP[S] are complicated enough without building cyclical dependencies between the two protocols. Less coupling is better.
However, they don't make a good case for how SVCB is need over SRV. SRV could be modified in a different spec instead.
- arccy 3y agothere is no cyclical dependency for the HTTPS record
- silverwind 3y agoThere is if you use DOH.
- thayne 3y ago> SRV could be modified in a different spec instead. I don't think it could be, at least without breaking things. Unlike SVCB, SRV wasn't designed to be extensible, so adding new functionality can't really be done without breaking anything that currently parses SRV responses.