On Apr 21, 2021, at 12:51 PM, Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40google....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Here's a proposed text change that I hope can satisfy both of our > requirements: https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/pull/319 > > The key sentence is: > > To ensure compatibility with complex SvcParam specifications, recursive > resolvers MAY validate the values of recognized SvcParamKeys, but MUST NOT > reject the record on this basis unless a value is obviously invalid.
Obvious to whom? "I know it when I see it" is not a good way to make standards. Also, validating SvcParamKeys does not ensure compatibility with complex SvcParam specifications. A different, simpler proposal: Recursive resolvers MAY validate the values of recognized SvcParamKeys in a record, and MAY reject records with invalid SvcParamKeys. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
