On Tue, 13 Apr 2021, Mark Andrews wrote:
John,
please show how this would be used to parse a HTTPS record
without extending the format?
It doesn't. If an RRTYPE uses a new field type, you need to write code.
But if you look at the list of RRTYPEs in the library I wrote, only seven
of them need unique field types and the rest use regular fields.
Also keep in mind that typical provisioning crudware currently handles
about six RRTYPEs, and this is a way to at least catch up with the past
several decades. It's not a panacea but it lessens the pain a lot.
R's,
John
PS: I expect that if HTTPS and SVCB are standardized, people will pretend
to be surprised that nobody uses them because there's no way to provision
them through registrar crudware.
HTTPS:65 HTTPS Record
I2:SvcPriority
N:TargetName
Z[SvcParm,M0]:SvcParams
The problem with the draft is that you are hiding the complexity in
"Miscellaneous fields” section of the draft which would need to be
updated for many new RR types. SVCB/HTTPS is just a case in point.
