[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc) 00 01 02 03

DNSOP Working Group                                          B. Schwartz
Internet-Draft                                                    Google
Intended status: Standards Track                               M. Bishop
Expires: 13 December 2020                                      E. Nygren
                                                     Akamai Technologies
                                                            11 June 2020


 Service binding and parameter specification via the DNS (DNS SVCB and
                               HTTPSSVC)
                   draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-03

Abstract

   This document specifies the "SVCB" and "HTTPSSVC" DNS resource record
   types to facilitate the lookup of information needed to make
   connections for origin resources, such as for HTTPS URLs.  SVCB
   records allow an origin to be served from multiple network locations,
   each with associated parameters (such as transport protocol
   configuration and keys for encrypting the TLS ClientHello).  They
   also enable aliasing of apex domains, which is not possible with
   CNAME.  The HTTPSSVC DNS RR is a variation of SVCB for HTTPS and HTTP
   origins.  By providing more information to the client before it
   attempts to establish a connection, these records offer potential
   benefits to both performance and privacy.

   TO BE REMOVED: This proposal is inspired by and based on recent DNS
   usage proposals such as ALTSVC, ANAME, and ESNIKEYS (as well as long
   standing desires to have SRV or a functional equivalent implemented
   for HTTP).  These proposals each provide an important function but
   are potentially incompatible with each other, such as when an origin
   is load-balanced across multiple hosting providers (multi-CDN).
   Furthermore, these each add potential cases for adding additional
   record lookups in addition to AAAA/A lookups.  This design attempts
   to provide a unified framework that encompasses the key functionality
   of these proposals, as well as providing some extensibility for
   addressing similar future challenges.

   TO BE REMOVED: The specific name for this RR type is an open topic
   for discussion.  "SVCB" and "HTTPSSVC" are meant as placeholders as
   they are easy to replace.  Other names might include "B", "SRV2",
   "SVCHTTPS", "HTTPS", and "ALTSVC".

   TO BE REMOVED: This document is being collaborated on in Github at:
   https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc
   (https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc).  The most recent working
   version of the document, open issues, etc. should all be available
   there.  The authors (gratefully) accept pull requests.



Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 December 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
   as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1.  Goals of the SVCB RR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.2.  Overview of the SVCB RR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     1.3.  Parameter for Encrypted ClientHello . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     1.4.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   2.  The SVCB record type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.1.  Presentation format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.1.1.  Presentation format for SvcFieldValue key=value
               pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.2.  SVCB RDATA Wire Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.3.  SVCB owner names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.4.  SvcRecordType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     2.5.  SVCB records: AliasForm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     2.6.  SVCB records: ServiceForm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13




Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


       2.6.1.  Special handling of "." for SvcDomainName in
               ServiceForm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       2.6.2.  SvcFieldPriority  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   3.  Client behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.1.  Handling resolution failures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     3.2.  Clients using a Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   4.  DNS Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.1.  Authoritative servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.2.  Recursive resolvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.3.  General requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   5.  Performance optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.1.  Optimistic pre-connection and connection reuse  . . . . .  17
     5.2.  Generating and using incomplete responses . . . . . . . .  18
     5.3.  Structuring zones for performance . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   6.  Initial SvcParamKeys  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     6.1.  "alpn" and "no-default-alpn"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     6.2.  "port"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     6.3.  "echconfig" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     6.4.  "ipv4hint" and "ipv6hint" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   7.  Using SVCB with HTTPS and HTTP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     7.1.  Owner names for HTTPSSVC records  . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     7.2.  Relationship to Alt-Svc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       7.2.1.  ALPN usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       7.2.2.  Untrusted channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       7.2.3.  TTL and granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     7.3.  Interaction with Alt-Svc  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     7.4.  Requiring Server Name Indication  . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     7.5.  HTTP Strict Transport Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     7.6.  HTTP-based protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   8.  SVCB/HTTPSSVC parameter for ECH configuration . . . . . . . .  26
     8.1.  Client behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     8.2.  Deployment considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   9.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     9.1.  Protocol enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     9.2.  Apex aliasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     9.3.  Parameter binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     9.4.  Non-HTTPS uses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   10. Interaction with other standards  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     12.1.  New registry for Service Parameters  . . . . . . . . . .  29
       12.1.1.  Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
       12.1.2.  Initial contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     12.2.  Registry updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   13. Acknowledgments and Related Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     14.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     14.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35



Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   Appendix A.  Comparison with alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     A.1.  Differences from the SRV RR type  . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     A.2.  Differences from the proposed HTTP record . . . . . . . .  37
     A.3.  Differences from the proposed ANAME record  . . . . . . .  37
     A.4.  Comparison with separate RR types for AliasForm and
           ServiceForm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   Appendix B.  Design Considerations and Open Issues  . . . . . . .  38
     B.1.  Record Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     B.2.  Generality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     B.3.  Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     B.4.  Whether to include Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   Appendix C.  Change history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40

1.  Introduction

   The SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs provide clients with complete instructions
   for access to an origin.  This information enables improved
   performance and privacy by avoiding transient connections to a sub-
   optimal default server, negotiating a preferred protocol, and
   providing relevant public keys.

   For example, when clients need to make a connection to fetch
   resources associated with an HTTPS URI, they currently resolve only A
   and/or AAAA records for the origin hostname.  This is adequate for
   services that use basic HTTPS (fixed port, no QUIC, no [ECH]).  Going
   beyond basic HTTPS confers privacy, performance, and operational
   advantages, but it requires the client to learn additional
   information, and it is highly desirable to minimize the number of
   round-trips and lookups required to learn this additional
   information.

   The SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs also help when the operator of an origin
   wishes to delegate operational control to one or more other domains,
   e.g. delegating the origin resource "https://example.com" to a
   service operator endpoint at "svc.example.net".  While this case can
   sometimes be handled by a CNAME, that does not cover all use-cases.
   CNAME is also inadequate when the service operator needs to provide a
   bound collection of consistent configuration parameters through the
   DNS (such as network location, protocol, and keying information).











Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   This document first describes the SVCB RR as a general-purpose
   resource record that can be applied directly and efficiently to a
   wide range of services (Section 2).  The HTTPSSVC RR is then defined
   as a special case of SVCB that improves efficiency and convenience
   for use with HTTPS (Section 7) by avoiding the need for an [Attrleaf]
   label (Section 7.1).  Other protocols with similar needs may follow
   the pattern of HTTPSSVC and assign their own SVCB-compatible RR
   types.

   All behaviors described as applying to the SVCB RR also apply to the
   HTTPSSVC RR unless explicitly stated otherwise.  Section 7 describes
   additional behaviors specific to the HTTPSSVC record.  Apart from
   Section 7 and introductory examples, much of this document refers
   only to the SVCB RR, but those references should be taken to apply to
   SVCB, HTTPSSVC, and any future SVCB-compatible RR types.

   The SVCB RR has two forms: 1) the "Alias Form" simply delegates
   operational control for a resource; 2) the "Service Form" binds
   together configuration information for a service endpoint.  The
   Service Form provides additional key=value parameters within each
   RDATA set.

   TO BE REMOVED: If we use this for providing configuration for DNS
   authorities, it is likely we'd specify a distinct "NS2" RR type that
   is an instantiation of SVCB for authoritative nameserver delegation
   and parameter specification, similar to HTTPSSVC.

   TO BE REMOVED: Another open question is whether SVCB records should
   be self-descriptive and include the service name (eg, "https") in the
   RDATA section to avoid ambiguity.  Perhaps this could be included as
   an svc="baz" parameter for protocols that are not the default for the
   RR type?  Current inclination is to not do so.

1.1.  Goals of the SVCB RR

   The goal of the SVCB RR is to allow clients to resolve a single
   additional DNS RR in a way that:

   *  Provides service endpoints authoritative for the service, along
      with parameters associated with each of these endpoints.

   *  Does not assume that all alternative service endpoints have the
      same parameters or capabilities, or are even operated by the same
      entity.  This is important as DNS does not provide any way to tie
      together multiple RRs for the same name.  For example, if
      www.example.com is a CNAME alias that switches between one of
      three CDNs or hosting environments, successive queries for that
      name may return records that correspond to different environments.



Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   *  Enables CNAME-like functionality at a zone apex (such as
      "example.com") for participating protocols, and generally enables
      delegation of operational authority for an origin within the DNS
      to an alternate name.

   Additional goals specific to HTTPSSVC and the HTTPS use-case include:

   *  Connect directly to [HTTP3] (QUIC transport) alternative service
      endpoints

   *  Obtain the [ECH] keys associated with an alternative service
      endpoint

   *  Support non-default TCP and UDP ports

   *  Address a set of long-standing issues due to HTTP(S) clients not
      implementing support for SRV records, as well as due to a
      limitation that a DNS name can not have both CNAME and NS RRs (as
      is the case for zone apex names)

   *  Provide an HSTS-like indication signaling for the duration of the
      DNS RR TTL that the HTTPS scheme should be used instead of HTTP
      (see Section 7.5).

1.2.  Overview of the SVCB RR

   This subsection briefly describes the SVCB RR in a non-normative
   manner.  (As mentioned above, this all applies equally to the
   HTTPSSVC RR which shares the same encoding, format, and high-level
   semantics.)

   The SVCB RR has two forms: AliasForm, which aliases a name to another
   name, and ServiceForm, which provides connection information bound to
   a service endpoint domain.  Placing both forms in a single RR type
   allows clients to fetch the relevant information with a single query.

   The SVCB RR has two mandatory fields and one optional.  The fields
   are:

   1.  SvcFieldPriority: The priority of this record (relative to
       others, with lower values preferred).  A value of 0 indicates
       AliasForm.  (Described in Section 2.6.2.)

   2.  SvcDomainName: The domain name of either the alias target (for
       AliasForm) or the alternative service endpoint (for ServiceForm).






Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   3.  SvcFieldValue (optional): A list of key=value pairs describing
       the alternative service endpoint for the domain name specified in
       SvcDomainName (only used in ServiceForm and otherwise ignored).
       Described in Section 2.1.1.

   Cooperating DNS recursive resolvers will perform subsequent record
   resolution (for SVCB, A, and AAAA records) and return them in the
   Additional Section of the response.  Clients must either use
   responses included in the additional section returned by the
   recursive resolver or perform necessary SVCB, A, and AAAA record
   resolutions.  DNS authoritative servers may attach in-bailiwick SVCB,
   A, AAAA, and CNAME records in the Additional Section to responses for
   an SVCB query.

   When in the ServiceForm, the SvcFieldValue of the SVCB RR provides an
   extensible data model for describing network endpoints that are
   authoritative for the origin, along with parameters associated with
   each of these endpoints.

   For the HTTPS use-case, the HTTPSSVC RR enables many of the benefits
   of [AltSvc] without waiting for a full HTTP connection initiation
   (multiple roundtrips) before learning of the preferred alternative,
   and without necessarily revealing the user's intended destination to
   all entities along the network path.

1.3.  Parameter for Encrypted ClientHello

   This document also defines a parameter for Encrypted ClientHello
   [ECH] keys.  See Section 8.

1.4.  Terminology

   For consistency with [AltSvc], we adopt the following definitions:

   *  An "origin" is an information source as in [RFC6454].  For
      services other than HTTPS, the exact definition will need to be
      provided by the document mapping that service onto the SVCB RR.

   *  The "origin server" is the server that the client would reach when
      accessing the origin in the absence of the SVCB record or an HTTPS
      Alt-Svc.

   *  An "alternative service" is a different server that can serve the
      origin over a specified protocol.

   For example within HTTPS, the origin consists of a scheme (typically
   "https"), a hostname, and a port (typically "443").




Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   Additional DNS terminology intends to be consistent with [DNSTerm].

   SVCB is a contraction of "service binding".  HTTPSSVC is a
   contraction of "HTTPS service".  SVCB, HTTPSSVC, and future RR types
   that share SVCB's format and registry are collectively known as SVCB-
   compatible RR types.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  The SVCB record type

   The SVCB DNS resource record (RR) type (RR type ???) is used to
   locate endpoints that can service an origin.  There is special
   handling for the case of "https" origins.

   The algorithm for resolving SVCB records and associated address
   records is specified in Section 3.

2.1.  Presentation format

   The presentation format of the record is:

   Name TTL IN SVCB SvcFieldPriority SvcDomainName SvcFieldValue

   The SVCB record is defined specifically within the Internet ("IN")
   Class ([RFC1035]).  SvcFieldPriority is a number in the range
   0-65535, SvcDomainName is a domain name (absolute or relative), and
   SvcFieldValue is a set of key=value pairs present for the
   ServiceForm.  Each key SHALL appear at most once in an SvcFieldValue.
   The SvcFieldValue is empty for the AliasForm.

2.1.1.  Presentation format for SvcFieldValue key=value pairs

   In ServiceForm, the SvcFieldValue consists of zero or more elements
   separated by whitespace.  Each element represents a key=value pair.

   Keys are IANA-registered SvcParamKeys (Section 12.1) with both a
   case-insensitive string representation and a numeric representation
   in the range 0-65535.  Registered key names should only contain
   characters from the ranges "a"-"z", "0"-"9", and "-".  In ABNF
   [RFC5234],






Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   ALPHA-LC    = %x61-7A   ;  a-z
   key         = 1*(ALPHA-LC / DIGIT / "-")
   display-key = 1*(ALPHA / DIGIT / "-")

   Values are in a format specific to the SvcParamKey.  Their definition
   should specify both their presentation format and wire encoding
   (e.g., domain names, binary data, or numeric values).  The initial
   keys and formats are defined in Section 6.

   The presentation format for SvcFieldValue is a whitespace-separated
   list of key=value pairs.  When the value is omitted, or both the
   value and the "=" are omitted, the presentation value is the empty
   string.

   ; basic-visible is VCHAR minus DQUOTE, ";", "(", ")", and "\".
   basic-visible = %x21 / %x23-27 / %2A-3A / %x3C-5B / %x5D-7E
   escaped-char  = "\" (VCHAR / WSP)
   contiguous    = 1*(basic-visible / escaped-char)
   quoted-string = DQUOTE *(contiguous / WSP) DQUOTE
   value         = quoted-string / contiguous
   pair          = display-key "=" value
   element       = display-key / pair

   The value format is intended to match the definition of <character-
   string> in [RFC1035] Section 5.1.  (Unlike <character-string>, the
   length of a value is not limited to 255 characters.)

   Unrecognized keys are represented in presentation format as
   "keyNNNNN" where NNNNN is the numeric value of the key type without
   leading zeros.  In presentation format, values corresponding to
   unrecognized keys SHALL be represented in wire format, using decimal
   escape codes (e.g. \255) when necessary.

   When decoding values of unrecognized keys in the presentation format:

   *  a character other than "\" represents its ASCII value in wire
      format.

   *  the character "\" followed by three decimal digits, up to 255,
      represents an octet in the wire format.

   *  the character "\" followed by any allowed character, except a
      decimal digit, represents the subsequent character's ASCII value.

   Elements in presentation format MAY appear in any order, but keys
   MUST NOT be repeated.





Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


2.2.  SVCB RDATA Wire Format

   The RDATA for the SVCB RR consists of:

   *  a 2 octet field for SvcFieldPriority as an integer in network byte
      order.

   *  the uncompressed, fully-qualified SvcDomainName, represented as a
      sequence of length-prefixed labels as in Section 3.1 of [RFC1035].

   *  the SvcFieldValue byte string, consuming the remainder of the
      record (so smaller than 65535 octets and constrained by the RDATA
      and DNS message sizes).

   AliasForm is defined by SvcFieldPriority being 0.

   When SvcFieldValue is non-empty (ServiceForm), it contains a series
   of SvcParamKey=SvcParamValue pairs, represented as:

   *  a 2 octet field containing the SvcParamKey as an integer in
      network byte order.  (See Section 12.1.2 for the defined values.)

   *  a 2 octet field containing the length of the SvcParamValue as an
      integer between 0 and 65535 in network byte order (but constrained
      by the RDATA and DNS message sizes).

   *  an octet string of this length whose contents are in a format
      determined by the SvcParamKey.

   SvcParamKeys SHALL appear in increasing numeric order.

   Clients MUST consider an RR malformed if

   *  the parser reaches the end of the RDATA while parsing an
      SvcFieldValue.

   *  SvcParamKeys are not in strictly increasing numeric order.

   *  the SvcParamValue for an SvcParamKey does not have the expected
      format.

   Note that the second condition implies that there are no duplicate
   SvcParamKeys.

   If any RRs are malformed, the client MUST reject the entire RRSet and
   fall back to non-SVCB connection establishment.





Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   TODO: decide if we want special handling for any SvcParamKey ranges?
   For example: range for greasing; experimental range; range-of-
   mandatory-to-use-the-RR vs range of ignore-just-param-if-unknown.

2.3.  SVCB owner names

   When querying the SVCB RR, an origin is translated into a QNAME by
   prepending the hostname with a label indicating the scheme, prefixed
   with an underscore, resulting in a domain name like
   "_examplescheme.api.example.com.".

   Protocol mapping documents MAY specify additional underscore-prefixed
   labels to be prepended.  For schemes that specify a port
   (Section 3.2.3 of [URI]), one reasonable possibility is to prepend
   the indicated port number (or the default if no port number is
   specified).  We term this behavior "Port Prefix Naming", and use it
   in the examples throughout this document.

   See Section 7.1 for the HTTPSSVC behavior.

   When a prior CNAME or SVCB record has aliased to an SVCB record, each
   RR shall be returned under its own owner name.

   Note that none of these forms alter the origin or authority for
   validation purposes.  For example, clients MUST continue to validate
   TLS certificate hostnames based on the origin host.

   As an example, the owner of example.com could publish this record

   _8443._foo.api.example.com. 7200 IN SVCB 0 svc4.example.net.

   to indicate that "foo://api.example.com:8443" is aliased to
   "svc4.example.net".  The owner of example.net, in turn, could publish
   this record

   svc4.example.net.  7200  IN SVCB 3 svc4.example.net. (
       alpn="bar" port="8004" echconfig="..." )

   to indicate that these services are served on port number 8004, which
   supports the protocol "bar" and its associated transport in addition
   to the default transport protocol for "foo://".

   (Parentheses are used to ignore a line break ([RFC1035]
   Section 5.1).)







Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


2.4.  SvcRecordType

   The SvcRecordType is indicated by the SvcFieldPriority, and defines
   the form of the SVCB RR.  When SvcFieldPriority is 0, the SVCB
   SvcRecordType is defined to be in AliasForm.  Otherwise, the SVCB
   SvcRecordType is defined to be in ServiceForm.

   Within an SVCB RRSet, all RRs should have the same SvcRecordType.  If
   an RRSet contains a record in AliasForm, the client MUST ignore any
   records in the set with ServiceForm.

2.5.  SVCB records: AliasForm

   When SvcRecordType is AliasForm, the SVCB record is to be treated
   similar to a CNAME alias pointing to SvcDomainName.  SVCB RRSets
   SHOULD only have a single resource record in this form.  If multiple
   are present, clients or recursive resolvers SHOULD pick one at
   random.

   The AliasForm's primary purpose is to allow aliasing at the zone
   apex, where CNAME is not allowed.  For example, if an operator of
   https://example.com wanted to point HTTPS requests to a service
   operating at svc.example.net, they would publish a record such as:

   example.com. 3600 IN SVCB 0 svc.example.net.

   In AliasForm, SvcDomainName MUST be the name of a domain that has
   SVCB, AAAA, or A records.  It MUST NOT be equal to the owner name, as
   this would cause a loop.

   Note that the SVCB record's owner name MAY be the canonical name of a
   CNAME record, and the SvcDomainName MAY be the owner of a CNAME
   record.  Clients and recursive resolvers MUST follow CNAMEs as
   normal.

   To avoid unbounded alias chains, clients and recursive resolvers MUST
   impose a limit on the total number of SVCB aliases they will follow
   for each resolution request.  This limit MUST NOT be zero, i.e.
   implementations MUST be able to follow at least one AliasForm record.
   The exact value of this limit is left to implementations.

   For compatibility and performance, zone owners SHOULD NOT configure
   their zones to require following multiple AliasForm records.








Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   As legacy clients will not know to use this record, service operators
   will likely need to retain fallback AAAA and A records alongside this
   SVCB record, although in a common case the target of the SVCB record
   might offer better performance, and therefore would be preferable for
   clients implementing this specification to use.

   Note that SVCB AliasForm RRs do not alias to RR types other than
   address records (AAAA and A), CNAMEs, and ServiceForm SVCB records.
   For example, an AliasForm SVCB record does not alias to an HTTPSSVC
   record, nor vice-versa.

2.6.  SVCB records: ServiceForm

   When SvcRecordType is the ServiceForm, the combination of
   SvcDomainName and SvcFieldValue parameters within each resource
   record associates an alternative service location with its connection
   parameters.

   Each protocol scheme that uses SVCB MUST define a protocol mapping
   that explains how SvcFieldValues are applied for connections of that
   scheme.  Unless specified otherwise by the protocol mapping, clients
   MUST ignore SvcFieldValue parameters that they do not recognize.

2.6.1.  Special handling of "." for SvcDomainName in ServiceForm

   For ServiceForm SVCB RRs, if SvcDomainName has the value "."
   (represented in the wire format as a zero-length label), then the
   owner name of this record MUST be used as the effective
   SvcDomainName.

   For example, in the following example "svc2.example.net" is the
   effective SvcDomainName:

   www.example.com.  7200  IN HTTPSSVC 0 svc.example.net.
   svc.example.net.  7200  IN CNAME    svc2.example.net.
   svc2.example.net. 7200  IN HTTPSSVC 1 . port=8002 echconfig="..."
   svc2.example.net. 300   IN A        192.0.2.2
   svc2.example.net. 300   IN AAAA     2001:db8::2

2.6.2.  SvcFieldPriority

   As RRs within an RRSet are explicitly unordered collections, the
   SvcFieldPriority value serves to indicate priority.  SVCB RRs with a
   smaller SvcFieldPriority value SHOULD be given preference over RRs
   with a larger SvcFieldPriority value.






Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   When receiving an RRSet containing multiple SVCB records with the
   same SvcFieldPriority value, clients SHOULD apply a random shuffle
   within a priority level to the records before using them, to ensure
   uniform load-balancing.

3.  Client behavior

   An SVCB-aware client resolves an origin HOST by attempting to
   determine the preferred SvcFieldValue and IP addresses for its
   service, using the following procedure:

   1.  Issue parallel AAAA/A and SVCB queries for the name HOST.  The
       answers for these may or may not include CNAME pointers before
       reaching one or more of these records.

   2.  If an SVCB record of AliasForm SvcRecordType is returned for
       HOST, clients MUST loop back to step 1 replacing HOST with
       SvcDomainName, subject to chain length limits and loop detection
       heuristics (see Section 3.1).

   3.  If one or more SVCB records of ServiceForm SvcRecordType are
       returned for HOST, clients should select the highest-priority
       option with acceptable parameters, and resolve AAAA and/or A
       records for its SvcDomainName if they are not already available.
       These are the preferred SvcFieldValue and IP addresses.  If the
       connection fails, the client MAY try to connect using values from
       a lower-priority record.  If none of the options succeed, the
       client SHOULD connect to the origin server directly.

   4.  If an SVCB record for HOST does not exist, the received AAAA and/
       or A records are the preferred IP addresses and there is no
       SvcFieldValue.

   This procedure does not rely on any recursive or authoritative server
   to comply with this specification or have any awareness of SVCB.

   When selecting between AAAA and A records to use, clients may use an
   approach such as [HappyEyeballsV2].

   Some important optimizations are discussed in Section 5 to avoid
   additional latency in comparison to ordinary AAAA/A lookups.










Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


3.1.  Handling resolution failures

   If an SVCB query results in a SERVFAIL error, transport error, or
   timeout, and DNS exchanges between the client and the recursive
   resolver are cryptographically protected (e.g. using TLS [RFC7858] or
   HTTPS [RFC8484]), the client MUST NOT fall back to non-SVCB
   connection establishment.  This ensures that an active attacker
   cannot mount a downgrade attack by denying the user access to the
   SVCB information.

   A SERVFAIL error can occur if the domain is DNSSEC-signed, the
   recursive resolver is DNSSEC-validating, and the attacker is between
   the recursive resolver and the authoritative DNS server.  A transport
   error or timeout can occur if an active attacker between the client
   and the recursive resolver is selectively dropping SVCB queries or
   responses, based on their size or other observable patterns.

   Similarly, if the client enforces DNSSEC validation on A/AAAA
   responses, it MUST NOT fall back to non-SVCB connection establishment
   if the SVCB response fails to validate.

   If the client is unable to complete SVCB resolution due to its chain
   length limit, the client SHOULD fall back to non-SVCB connection, as
   if the origin's SVCB record did not exist.

3.2.  Clients using a Proxy

   Clients using a domain-oriented transport proxy like HTTP CONNECT
   ([RFC7231] Section 4.3.6) or SOCKS5 ([RFC1928]) SHOULD disable SVCB
   support if performing SVCB queries would violate the client's privacy
   intent.

   If the client can safely perform SVCB queries (e.g. via the proxy or
   an affiliated resolver), the client SHOULD follow the standard SVCB
   resolution process, selecting the highest priority option that is
   compatible with the client and the proxy.  The client SHOULD provide
   the final SvcDomainName and port to the proxy, which will perform any
   required A and AAAA lookups.

   Providing the proxy with the final SvcDomainName has several
   benefits:

   *  It allows the client to use the SvcFieldValue, if present, which
      is only usable with a specific SvcDomainName.  The SvcFieldValue
      may include information that enhances performance (e.g. alpn) and
      privacy (e.g. echconfig).

   *  It allows the origin to delegate the apex domain.



Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   *  It allows the proxy to select between IPv4 and IPv6 addresses for
      the server according to its configuration, and receive addresses
      based on its network geolocation.

4.  DNS Server Behavior

4.1.  Authoritative servers

   When replying to an SVCB query, authoritative DNS servers SHOULD
   return A, AAAA, and SVCB records (as well as any relevant CNAME or
   [DNAME] records) in the Additional Section for any in-bailiwick
   SvcDomainNames.

4.2.  Recursive resolvers

   Recursive resolvers that are aware of SVCB SHOULD ensure that the
   client can execute the procedure in Section 3 without issuing a
   second round of queries, by incorporating all the necessary
   information into a single response.  For the initial SVCB record
   query, this is just the normal response construction process (i.e.
   unknown RR type resolution under [RFC3597]).  For followup
   resolutions performed during this procedure, we define incorporation
   as adding all Answer and Additional RRs to the Additional section,
   and all Authority RRs to the Authority section, without altering the
   response code.

   Upon receiving an SVCB query, recursive resolvers SHOULD start with
   the standard resolution procedure, and then follow this procedure to
   construct the full response to the stub resolver:

   1.  Incorporate the results of SVCB resolution.  If the chain length
       limit has been reached, terminate successfully (i.e. a NOERROR
       response).

   2.  If any of the resolved SVCB records are in AliasForm, choose an
       AliasForm record at random, and resolve SVCB, A, and AAAA records
       for its SvcDomainName.

       *  If any SVCB records are resolved, go to step 1.

       *  Otherwise, incorporate the results of A and AAAA resolution,
          and terminate.

   3.  All the resolved SVCB records are in ServiceForm.  Resolve A and
       AAAA queries for each SvcDomainName (or for the owner name if
       SvcDomainName is "."), incorporate all the results, and
       terminate.




Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   In this procedure, "resolve" means the resolver's ordinary recursive
   resolution procedure, as if processing a query for that RRSet.  This
   includes following any aliases that the resolver would ordinarily
   follow (e.g.  CNAME, [DNAME]).

4.3.  General requirements

   All DNS servers SHOULD treat the SvcFieldValue portion of the SVCB RR
   as opaque and SHOULD NOT try to alter their behavior based on its
   contents.

   When responding to a query that includes the DNSSEC OK bit
   ([RFC3225]), DNSSEC-capable recursive and authoritative DNS servers
   MUST accompany each RRSet in the Additional section with the same
   DNSSEC-related records that they would send when providing that RRSet
   as an Answer (e.g.  RRSIG, NSEC, NSEC3).

5.  Performance optimizations

   For optimal performance (i.e. minimum connection setup time), clients
   SHOULD issue address (AAAA and/or A) and SVCB queries simultaneously,
   and SHOULD implement a client-side DNS cache.  Responses in the
   Additional section of an SVCB response SHOULD be placed in cache
   before performing any followup queries.  With these optimizations in
   place, and conforming DNS servers, using SVCB does not add network
   latency to connection setup.

5.1.  Optimistic pre-connection and connection reuse

   If an address response arrives before the corresponding SVCB
   response, the client MAY initiate a connection as if the SVCB query
   returned NODATA, but MUST NOT transmit any information that could be
   altered by the SVCB response until it arrives.  For example, a TLS
   ClientHello can be altered by the "echconfig" value of an SVCB
   response (Section 6.3).  Clients implementing this optimization
   SHOULD wait for 50 milliseconds before starting optimistic pre-
   connection, as per the guidance in [HappyEyeballsV2].

   An SVCB record is consistent with a connection if the client would
   attempt an equivalent connection when making use of that record.  If
   an SVCB record is consistent with an active or in-progress connection
   C, the client MAY prefer that record and use C as its connection.
   For example, suppose the client receives this SVCB RRSet for a
   protocol that uses TLS over TCP:







Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   _1234._bar.example.com. 300 IN SVCB 1 svc1.example.net (
       echconfig="111..." ipv6hint=2001:db8::1 port=1234 ... )
                                  SVCB 2 svc2.example.net (
       echconfig="222..." ipv6hint=2001:db8::2 port=1234 ... )

   If the client has an in-progress TCP connection to
   "[2001:db8::2]:1234", it MAY proceed with TLS on that connection
   using "echconfig="222..."", even though the other record in the RRSet
   has higher priority.

   If none of the SVCB records are consistent with any active or in-
   progress connection, clients must proceed as described in Step 3 of
   the procedure in Section 3.

5.2.  Generating and using incomplete responses

   When following the procedure in Section 4.2, recursive resolvers MAY
   terminate the procedure early and produce a reply that omits some of
   the associated RRSets.  This is REQUIRED when the chain length limit
   is reached (Section 4.2 step 1), but might also be appropriate when
   the maximum response size is reached, or when responding before fully
   chasing dependencies would improve performance.  When omitting
   certain RRSets, recursive resolvers SHOULD prioritize information
   from higher priority ServiceForm records over lower priority
   ServiceForm records.

   As discussed in Section 3, clients MUST be able to fetch additional
   information that is required to use an SVCB record, if it is not
   included in the initial response.  As a performance optimization, if
   some of the SVCB records in the response can be used without
   requiring additional DNS queries, the client MAY prefer those
   records, regardless of their priorities.

5.3.  Structuring zones for performance

   To avoid a delay for clients using a nonconforming recursive
   resolver, domain owners SHOULD use a single SVCB record whose
   SvcDomainName is "." if possible.  This will ensure that the required
   address records are already present in the client's DNS cache as part
   of the responses to the address queries that were issued in parallel.

6.  Initial SvcParamKeys

   A few initial SvcParamKeys are defined here.  These keys are useful
   for HTTPS, and most are applicable to other protocols as well.






Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


6.1.  "alpn" and "no-default-alpn"

   The "alpn" and "no-default-alpn" SvcParamKeys together indicate the
   set of Application Layer Protocol Negotation (ALPN) protocol
   identifiers [ALPN] and associated transport protocols supported by
   this service endpoint.

   As with [AltSvc], the ALPN protocol identifier is used to identify
   the application protocol and associated suite of protocols supported
   by the endpoint (the "protocol suite").  Clients filter the set of
   ALPN identifiers to match the protocol suites they support, and this
   informs the underlying transport protocol used (such as QUIC-over-UDP
   or TLS-over-TCP).

   ALPNs are identified by their registered "Identification Sequence"
   (alpn-id), which is a sequence of 1-255 octets.

   alpn-id = 1*255(OCTET)

   The presentation value of "alpn" is a comma-separated list of one or
   more "alpn-id"s.  Any commas present in the protocol-id are escaped
   by a backslash:

   escaped-octet = %x00-2b / "\," / %x2d-5b / "\\" / %x5D-FF
   escaped-id = 1*(escaped-octet)
   alpn-value = escaped-id *("," escaped-id)

   The wire format value for "alpn" consists of at least one ALPN
   identifier ("alpn-id") prefixed by its length as a single octet, and
   these length-value pairs are concatenated to form the SvcParamValue.
   These pairs MUST exactly fill the SvcParamValue; otherwise, the
   SvcParamValue is malformed.

   For "no-default-alpn", the presentation and wire format values MUST
   be empty.

   Each scheme that uses this SvcParamKey defines a "default set" of
   supported ALPNs, which SHOULD NOT be empty.  To determine the set of
   protocol suites supported by an endpoint (the "ALPN set"), the client
   parses the set of ALPN identifiers in the "alpn" parameter, and then
   adds the default set unless the "no-default-alpn" SvcParamKey is
   present.  The presence of a value in the alpn set indicates that this
   service endpoint, described by SvcDomainName and the other parameters
   (e.g. "port") offers service with the protocol suite associated with
   the ALPN ID.






Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   ALPN IDs that do not uniquely identify a protocol suite (e.g. an ID
   that can be used with both TLS and DTLS) are not compatible with this
   SvcParamKey and MUST NOT be included in the ALPN set.

   Clients SHOULD NOT attempt connection to a service endpoint whose
   ALPN set does not contain any compatible protocol suites.  To ensure
   consistency of behavior, clients MAY reject the entire SVCB RRSet and
   fall back to basic connection establishment if all of the RRs
   indicate "no-default-alpn", even if connection could have succeeded
   using a non-default alpn.

   For compatibility with clients that require default transports, zone
   operators SHOULD ensure that at least one RR in each RRSet supports
   the default transports.

   Clients MUST include an "application_layer_protocol_negotiation"
   extension in their ClientHello with a ProtocolNameList that includes
   at least one ID from the ALPN set.  Clients SHOULD also include any
   other values that they support and could negotiate on that connection
   with equivalent or better security properties.  For example, if the
   ALPN set only contains "http/1.1", the client could include
   "http/1.1" and "h2" in the ProtocolNameList.

   Once the client has formulated the ClientHello, protocol negotiation
   on that connection proceeds as specified in [ALPN], without regard to
   the SVCB ALPN set.  To preserve the security guarantees of this
   process, clients MUST consolidate all compatible ALPN IDs into a
   single ProtocolNameList.

6.2.  "port"

   The "port" SvcParamKey defines the TCP or UDP port that should be
   used to contact this alternative service.  If this key is not
   present, clients SHALL use the origin server's port number.

   The presentation format of the SvcParamValue is a numeric value
   between 0 and 65535 inclusive.  Any other values (e.g. the empty
   value) are syntax errors.

   The wire format of the SvcParamValue is the corresponding 2 octet
   numeric value in network byte order.

   If a port-restricting firewall is in place between some client and
   the service endpoint, changing the port number might cause that
   client to lose access to the service, so operators should exercise
   caution when using this SvcParamKey to specify a non-default port.





Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


6.3.  "echconfig"

   The SvcParamKey to enable Encrypted ClientHello (ECH) is "echconfig".
   Its value is defined in Section 8.  It is applicable to most TLS-
   based protocols.

   When publishing a record containing an "echconfig" parameter, the
   publisher MUST ensure that all IP addresses of SvcDomainName
   correspond to servers that have access to the corresponding private
   key or are authoritative for the public name.  (See Section 7.2.2 of
   [ECH] for more details about the public name.)  This yields an
   anonymity set of cardinality equal to the number of ECH-enabled
   server domains supported by a given client-facing server.  Thus, even
   with an encrypted ClientHello, an attacker who can enumerate the set
   of ECH-enabled domains supported by a client-facing server can guess
   the correct SNI with probability at least 1/K, where K is the size of
   this ECH-enabled server anonymity set.  This probability may be
   increased via traffic analysis or other mechanisms.

6.4.  "ipv4hint" and "ipv6hint"

   The "ipv4hint" and "ipv6hint" keys convey IP addresses that clients
   MAY use to reach the service.  If A and AAAA records for
   SvcDomainName are locally available, the client SHOULD ignore these
   hints.  Otherwise, clients SHOULD perform A and/or AAAA queries for
   SvcDomainName as in Section 3, and clients SHOULD use the IP address
   in those responses for future connections.  Clients MAY opt to
   terminate any connections using the addresses in hints and instead
   switch to the addresses in response to the SvcDomainName query.
   Failure to use A and/or AAAA response addresses could negatively
   impact load balancing or other geo-aware features and thereby degrade
   client performance.

   The wire format for each parameter is a sequence of IP addresses in
   network byte order.  Like an A or AAAA RRSet, the list of addresses
   represents an unordered collection, and clients SHOULD pick addresses
   to use in a random order.  An empty list of addresses is invalid.

   When selecting between IPv4 and IPv6 addresses to use, clients may
   use an approach such as [HappyEyeballsV2].  When only "ipv4hint" is
   present, IPv6-only clients may synthesize IPv6 addresses as specified
   in [RFC7050] or ignore the "ipv4hint" key and wait for AAAA
   resolution (Section 3).  Recursive resolvers MUST NOT perform DNS64
   ([RFC6147]) on parameters within an SVCB record.  For best
   performance, server operators SHOULD include an "ipv6hint" parameter
   whenever they include an "ipv4hint" parameter.





Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   The presentation format for each parameter is a comma-separated list
   of IP addresses in standard textual format [RFC5952].

   These parameters are intended to minimize additional connection
   latency when a recursive resolver is not compliant with the
   requirements in Section 4, and SHOULD NOT be included if most clients
   are using compliant recursive resolvers.  When SvcDomainName is ".",
   server operators SHOULD NOT include these hints, because they are
   unlikely to convey any performance benefit.

7.  Using SVCB with HTTPS and HTTP

   Use of any protocol with SVCB requires a protocol-specific mapping
   specification.  This section specifies the mapping for HTTPS and
   HTTP.

   To enable special handling for the HTTPS and HTTP use-cases, the
   HTTPSSVC RR type is defined as an SVCB-compatible RR type, specific
   to the https and http schemes.  Clients MUST NOT perform SVCB queries
   or accept SVCB responses for "https" or "http" schemes.

   The HTTPSSVC wire format and presentation format are identical to
   SVCB, and both share the SvcParamKey registry.  SVCB semantics apply
   equally to HTTPSSVC unless specified otherwise.

   All the SvcParamKeys defined in Section 6 are permitted for use in
   HTTPSSVC.  The default set of ALPN IDs is the single value
   "http/1.1".

   The presence of an HTTPSSVC record for an origin also indicates that
   all HTTP resources are available over HTTPS, as discussed in
   Section 7.5.  This allows HTTPSSVC RRs to apply to pre-existing
   "http" scheme URLs, while ensuring that the client uses a secure and
   authenticated HTTPS connection.

   The HTTPSSVC RR parallels the concepts introduced in the HTTP
   Alternative Services proposed standard [AltSvc].  Clients and servers
   that implement HTTPSSVC are NOT REQUIRED to implement Alt-Svc.

7.1.  Owner names for HTTPSSVC records

   The HTTPSSVC RR uses Port Prefix Naming (Section 2.3), with one
   modification: if the scheme is "https" and the port is 443, then the
   client's original QNAME is equal to the origin hostname, without any
   prefix labels.






Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   By removing the [Attrleaf] labels used in SVCB, this construction
   enables offline DNSSEC signing of wildcard domains, which are
   commonly used with HTTPS.  Reusing the origin hostname also allows
   the targets of existing CNAME chains (e.g.  CDN hosts) to start
   returning HTTPSSVC responses without requiring origin domains to
   configure and maintain an additional delegation.

   Following of HTTPSSVC AliasForm and CNAME aliases is unchanged from
   SVCB.

   Clients always convert "http" URLs to "https" before performing an
   HTTPSSVC query using the process described in Section 7.5, so domain
   owners MUST NOT publish HTTPSSVC records with a prefix of "_http".

   Note that none of these forms alter the HTTPS origin or authority.
   For example, clients MUST continue to validate TLS certificate
   hostnames based on the origin host.

7.2.  Relationship to Alt-Svc

   Publishing a ServiceForm HTTPSSVC record in DNS is intended to be
   similar to transmitting an Alt-Svc field value over HTTPS, and
   receiving an HTTPSSVC record is intended to be similar to receiving
   that field value over HTTPS.  However, there are some differences in
   the intended client and server behavior.

7.2.1.  ALPN usage

   Unlike Alt-Svc Field Values, HTTPSSVC records can contain multiple
   ALPN IDs, and clients are encouraged to offer additional ALPNs that
   they support (subject to security constraints).

   TO BE REMOVED: The ALPN semantics in [AltSvc] are ambiguous, and
   problematic in some interpretations.  We should update [AltSvc] to
   give it well-defined semantics that match HTTPSSVC.

7.2.2.  Untrusted channel

   SVCB does not require or provide any assurance of authenticity.
   (DNSSEC signing and verification, which would provide such assurance,
   are OPTIONAL.)  The DNS resolution process is treated as an untrusted
   channel that learns only the QNAME, and is prevented from mounting
   any attack beyond denial of service.








Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   Alt-Svc parameters that cannot be safely received in this model MUST
   NOT have a corresponding defined SvcParamKey.  For example, there is
   no SvcParamKey corresponding to the Alt-Svc "persist" parameter,
   because this parameter is not safe to accept over an untrusted
   channel.

7.2.3.  TTL and granularity

   There is no SvcParamKey corresponding to the Alt-Svc "ma" (max age)
   parameter.  Instead, server operators encode the expiration time in
   the DNS TTL.

   The appropriate TTL value will typically be similar to the "ma" value
   used for Alt-Svc, but may vary depending on the desired efficiency
   and agility.  Some DNS caches incorrectly extend the lifetime of DNS
   records beyond the stated TTL, so server operators cannot rely on
   HTTPSSVC records expiring on time.  Shortening the TTL to compensate
   for incorrect caching is NOT RECOMMENDED, as this practice impairs
   the performance of correctly functioning caches and does not
   guarantee faster expiration from incorrect caches.  Instead, server
   operators SHOULD maintain compatibility with expired records until
   they observe that nearly all connections have migrated to the new
   configuration.

   Sending Alt-Svc over HTTP allows the server to tailor the Alt-Svc
   Field Value specifically to the client.  When using an HTTPSSVC DNS
   record, groups of clients will necessarily receive the same
   SvcFieldValue.  Therefore, HTTPSSVC is not suitable for uses that
   require single-client granularity.

7.3.  Interaction with Alt-Svc

   Clients that do not implement support for Encrypted ClientHello MAY
   skip the HTTPSSVC query if a usable Alt-Svc value is available in the
   local cache.  If Alt-Svc connection fails, these clients SHOULD fall
   back to the HTTPSSVC client connection procedure (Section 3).

   For clients that implement support for ECH, the interaction between
   HTTPSSVC and Alt-Svc is described in Section 8.1.

   This specification does not alter the DNS queries performed when
   connecting to an Alt-Svc hostname (typically A and/or AAAA only).

7.4.  Requiring Server Name Indication

   Clients MUST NOT use an HTTPSSVC response unless the client supports
   TLS Server Name Indication (SNI) and indicate the origin name when
   negotiating TLS.  This supports the conservation of IP addresses.



Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   Note that the TLS SNI (and also the HTTP "Host" or ":authority") will
   indicate the origin, not the SvcDomainName.

7.5.  HTTP Strict Transport Security

   By publishing an HTTPSSVC record, the server operator indicates that
   all useful HTTP resources on that origin are reachable over HTTPS,
   similar to HTTP Strict Transport Security [HSTS].  When an HTTPSSVC
   record is present for an origin, all "http" scheme requests for that
   origin SHOULD logically be redirected to "https".

   Prior to making an "http" scheme request, the client SHOULD perform a
   lookup to determine if any HTTPSSVC records exist for that origin.
   To do so, the client SHOULD construct a corresponding "https" URL as
   follows:

   1.  Replace the "http" scheme with "https".

   2.  If the "http" URL explicitly specifies port 80, specify port 443.

   3.  Do not alter any other aspect of the URL.

   This construction is equivalent to Section 8.3 of [HSTS], point 5.

   If an HTTPSSVC query for this "https" URL returns any HTTPSSVC
   records (AliasForm or ServiceForm), the client SHOULD act as if it
   has received an HTTP "307 Temporary Redirect" redirect to this
   "https" URL.  Because HTTPSSVC is received over an often insecure
   channel (DNS), clients MUST NOT place any more trust in this signal
   than if they had received a 307 redirect over cleartext HTTP.

   When making an "https" scheme request to an origin with an HTTPSSVC
   record, either directly or via the above redirect, the client SHOULD
   terminate the connection if there are any errors with the underlying
   secure transport, such as errors in certificate validation.  This
   aligns with Section 8.4 and Section 12.1 of [HSTS].

7.6.  HTTP-based protocols

   We define an "HTTP-based protocol" as one that involves connecting to
   an "http:" or "https:" URL.  When implementing an HTTP-based
   protocol, clients that use HTTPSSVC for HTTP SHOULD also use it for
   this URL.  For example, clients that support HTTPSSVC and implement
   the altered [WebSocket] opening handshake from [FETCH] SHOULD use
   HTTPSSVC for the "requestURL".

   An HTTP-based protocol MAY define its own SVCB mapping.  Such
   mappings MAY be defined to take precedence over HTTPSSVC.



Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


8.  SVCB/HTTPSSVC parameter for ECH configuration

   The SVCB "echconfig" parameter is defined for conveying the ECH
   configuration of an alternative service.  In wire format, the value
   of the parameter is an ECHConfigs vector [ECH], including the
   redundant length prefix.  In presentation format, the value is
   encoded in [base64].

   When ECH is in use, the TLS ClientHello is divided into an
   unencrypted "outer" and an encrypted "inner" ClientHello.  The outer
   ClientHello is an implementation detail of ECH, and its contents are
   controlled by the ECHConfig in accordance with [ECH].  The inner
   ClientHello is used for establishing a connection to the service, so
   its contents may be influenced by other SVCB parameters.  For
   example, the requirements on the ProtocolNameList in Section 6.1
   apply only to the inner ClientHello.  Similarly, it is the inner
   ClientHello whose Server Name Indication identifies the origin.

8.1.  Client behavior

   The general client behavior specified in Section 3 permits clients to
   retry connection with a less preferred alternative if the preferred
   option fails, including falling back to a direct connection if all
   SVCB options fail.  This behavior is not suitable for ECH, because
   fallback would negate the privacy benefits of ECH.  Accordingly, ECH-
   capable clients SHALL implement the following behavior for connection
   establishment.

   1.  Perform connection establishment using HTTPSSVC as described in
       Section 3, but do not fall back to the origin's A/AAAA records.
       If all the HTTPSSVC RRs have an "echconfig" key, and they all
       fail, terminate connection establishment.

   2.  If the client implements Alt-Svc, try to connect using any
       entries from the Alt-Svc cache.

   3.  Fall back to the origin's A/AAAA records if necessary.

   As a latency optimization, clients MAY prefetch DNS records for later
   steps before they are needed.











Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


8.2.  Deployment considerations

   An HTTPSSVC RRSet containing some RRs with "echconfig" and some
   without is vulnerable to a downgrade attack.  This configuration is
   NOT RECOMMENDED.  Zone owners who do use such a mixed configuration
   SHOULD mark the RRs with "echconfig" as more preferred (i.e. smaller
   SvcFieldPriority) than those without, in order to maximize the
   likelihood that ECH will be used in the absence of an active
   adversary.

9.  Examples

9.1.  Protocol enhancements

   Consider a simple zone of the form

   simple.example. 300 IN A    192.0.2.1
                          AAAA 2001:db8::1

   The domain owner could add this record

   simple.example. 7200 IN HTTPSSVC 1 . alpn=h3 ...

   to indicate that simple.example uses HTTPS, and supports QUIC in
   addition to HTTPS over TCP (an implicit default).  The record could
   also include other information (e.g. non-standard port, ECH
   configuration).

9.2.  Apex aliasing

   Consider a zone that is using CNAME aliasing:

   $ORIGIN aliased.example. ; A zone that is using a hosting service
   ; Subdomain aliased to a high-performance server pool
   www             7200 IN CNAME pool.svc.example.
   ; Apex domain on fixed IPs because CNAME is not allowed at the apex
   @                300 IN A     192.0.2.1
                        IN AAAA  2001:db8::1

   With HTTPSSVC, the owner of aliased.example could alias the apex by
   adding one additional record:

   @               7200 IN HTTPSSVC 0 pool.svc.example.

   With this record in place, HTTPSSVC-aware clients will use the same
   server pool for aliased.example and www.aliased.example.  (They will
   also upgrade to HTTPS on aliased.example.)  Non-HTTPSSVC-aware
   clients will just ignore the new record.



Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   Similar to CNAME, HTTPSSVC has no impact on the origin name.  When
   connecting, clients will continue to treat the authoritative origins
   as "https://www.aliased.example" and "https://aliased.example",
   respectively, and will validate TLS server certificates accordingly.

9.3.  Parameter binding

   Suppose that svc.example's default server pool supports HTTP/2, and
   it has deployed HTTP/3 on a new server pool with a different
   configuration.  This can be expressed in the following form:

   $ORIGIN svc.example. ; A hosting provider.
   pool  7200 IN HTTPSSVC 1 h3pool alpn=h2,h3 echconfig="123..."
                 HTTPSSVC 2 .      alpn=h2 echconfig="abc..."
   pool   300 IN A        192.0.2.2
                 AAAA     2001:db8::2
   h3pool 300 IN A        192.0.2.3
                 AAAA     2001:db8::3

   This configuration is entirely compatible with the "Apex aliasing"
   example, whether the client supports HTTPSSVC or not.  If the client
   does support HTTPSSVC, all connections will be upgraded to HTTPS, and
   clients will use HTTP/3 if they can.  Parameters are "bound" to each
   server pool, so each server pool can have its own protocol, ECH
   configuration, etc.

9.4.  Non-HTTPS uses

   For services other than HTTPS, the SVCB RR and an [Attrleaf] label
   will be used.  For example, to reach an example resource of
   "baz://api.example.com:8765", the following Alias Form SVCB record
   would be used to delegate to "svc4-baz.example.net." which in-turn
   could return AAAA/A records and/or SVCB records in ServiceForm.

   _8765._baz.api.example.com. 7200 IN SVCB 0 svc4-baz.example.net.

   HTTPSSVC records use similar [Attrleaf] labels if the origin contains
   a non-default port.

10.  Interaction with other standards

   This standard is intended to reduce connection latency and improve
   user privacy.  Server operators implementing this standard SHOULD
   also implement TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] and OCSP Stapling [RFC6066], both of
   which confer substantial performance and privacy benefits when used
   in combination with SVCB records.





Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   To realize the greatest privacy benefits, this proposal is intended
   for use over a privacy-preserving DNS transport (like DNS over TLS
   [RFC7858] or DNS over HTTPS [RFC8484]).  However, performance
   improvements, and some modest privacy improvements, are possible
   without the use of those standards.

   Any specification for use of SVCB with a protocol MUST have an entry
   for its scheme under the SVCB RR type in the IANA DNS Underscore
   Global Scoped Entry Registry [Attrleaf].  The scheme SHOULD have an
   entry in the IANA URI Schemes Registry [RFC7595].  The scheme SHOULD
   have a defined specification for use with SVCB.

11.  Security Considerations

   SVCB/HTTPSSVC RRs are intended for distribution over untrusted
   channels, and clients are REQUIRED to verify that the alternative
   service is authoritative for the origin (similar to Section 2.1 of
   [AltSvc]).  Therefore, DNSSEC signing and validation are OPTIONAL for
   publishing and using SVCB and HTTPSSVC records.

   Clients MUST ensure that their DNS cache is partitioned for each
   local network, or flushed on network changes, to prevent a local
   adversary in one network from implanting a forged DNS record that
   allows them to track users or hinder their connections after they
   leave that network.

12.  IANA Considerations

12.1.  New registry for Service Parameters

   The "Service Binding (SVCB) Parameter Registry" defines the namespace
   for parameters, including string representations and numeric
   SvcParamKey values.  This registry is shared with other SVCB-
   compatible RR types, such as HTTPSSVC.

   ACTION: create and include a reference to this registry.

12.1.1.  Procedure

   A registration MUST include the following fields:

   *  Name: Service parameter key name

   *  SvcParamKey: Service parameter key numeric identifier (range
      0-65535)

   *  Meaning: a short description




Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   *  Pointer to specification text

   SvcParamKey values to be added to this namespace have different
   policies ([RFC5226], Section 4.1) based on their range:

                 +-------------+-------------------------+
                 | SvcParamKey | IANA Policy             |
                 +=============+=========================+
                 | 0-255       | Standards Action        |
                 +-------------+-------------------------+
                 | 256-32767   | Expert Review           |
                 +-------------+-------------------------+
                 | 32768-65280 | First Come First Served |
                 +-------------+-------------------------+
                 | 65280-65534 | Private Use             |
                 +-------------+-------------------------+
                 | 65535       | Standards Action        |
                 +-------------+-------------------------+

                                  Table 1

   Apart from the initial contents, the SvcParamKey name MUST NOT start
   with "key".

12.1.2.  Initial contents

   The "Service Binding (SVCB) Parameter Registry" shall initially be
   populated with the registrations below:























Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


    +-------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------+
    | SvcParamKey | NAME            | Meaning             | Reference |
    +=============+=================+=====================+===========+
    | 0           | (no name)       | Reserved for        | (This     |
    |             |                 | internal use        | document) |
    +-------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------+
    | 1           | alpn            | Additional          | (This     |
    |             |                 | supported protocols | document) |
    +-------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------+
    | 2           | no-default-alpn | No support for      | (This     |
    |             |                 | default protocol    | document) |
    +-------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------+
    | 3           | port            | Port for            | (This     |
    |             |                 | alternative service | document) |
    +-------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------+
    | 4           | ipv4hint        | IPv4 address hints  | (This     |
    |             |                 |                     | document) |
    +-------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------+
    | 5           | echconfig       | Encrypted           | (This     |
    |             |                 | ClientHello info    | document) |
    +-------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------+
    | 6           | ipv6hint        | IPv6 address hints  | (This     |
    |             |                 |                     | document) |
    +-------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------+
    | 65280-65534 | keyNNNNN        | Private Use         | (This     |
    |             |                 |                     | document) |
    +-------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------+
    | 65535       | key65535        | Reserved            | (This     |
    |             |                 |                     | document) |
    +-------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------+

                                  Table 2

   TODO: do we also want to reserve a range for greasing?

12.2.  Registry updates

   Per [RFC6895], please add the following entries to the data type
   range of the Resource Record (RR) TYPEs registry:












Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


     +----------+----------------------------------------+-----------+
     | TYPE     | Meaning                                | Reference |
     +==========+========================================+===========+
     | SVCB     | Service Location and Parameter Binding | (This     |
     |          |                                        | document) |
     +----------+----------------------------------------+-----------+
     | HTTPSSVC | HTTPS Service Location and Parameter   | (This     |
     |          | Binding                                | document) |
     +----------+----------------------------------------+-----------+

                                  Table 3

   Per [Attrleaf], please add the following entry to the DNS Underscore
   Global Scoped Entry Registry:

       +----------+------------+-----------------+-----------------+
       | RR TYPE  | _NODE NAME | Meaning         | Reference       |
       +==========+============+=================+=================+
       | HTTPSSVC | _https     | HTTPS SVCB info | (This document) |
       +----------+------------+-----------------+-----------------+

                                  Table 4

13.  Acknowledgments and Related Proposals

   There have been a wide range of proposed solutions over the years to
   the "CNAME at the Zone Apex" challenge proposed.  These include
   [I-D.draft-bellis-dnsop-http-record-00],
   [I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-aname-03], and others.

   Thank you to Ian Swett, Ralf Weber, Jon Reed, Martin Thomson, Lucas
   Pardue, Ilari Liusvaara, Tim Wicinski, Tommy Pauly, Chris Wood, David
   Benjamin, and others for their feedback and suggestions on this
   draft.

14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

   [ALPN]     Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
              "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
              Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
              July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.








Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   [Attrleaf] Crocker, D., "DNS Scoped Data Through "Underscore" Naming
              of Attribute Leaves", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-16, 16 November 2018,
              <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-
              attrleaf-16.txt>.

   [base64]   Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
              Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.

   [DNAME]    Rose, S. and W. Wijngaards, "DNAME Redirection in the
              DNS", RFC 6672, DOI 10.17487/RFC6672, June 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6672>.

   [ECH]      Rescorla, E., Oku, K., Sullivan, N., and C. Wood, "TLS
              Encrypted Client Hello", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-tls-esni-07, 1 June 2020, <http://www.ietf.org/
              internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tls-esni-07.txt>.

   [HappyEyeballsV2]
              Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2:
              Better Connectivity Using Concurrency", RFC 8305,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8305, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8305>.

   [HSTS]     Hodges, J., Jackson, C., and A. Barth, "HTTP Strict
              Transport Security (HSTS)", RFC 6797,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6797, November 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6797>.

   [HTTP3]    Bishop, M., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
              (HTTP/3)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              quic-http-20, 23 April 2019, <http://www.ietf.org/
              internet-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-http-20.txt>.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P.V., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

   [RFC1928]  Leech, M., Ganis, M., Lee, Y., Kuris, R., Koblas, D., and
              L. Jones, "SOCKS Protocol Version 5", RFC 1928,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1928, March 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1928>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.



Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   [RFC3225]  Conrad, D., "Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC",
              RFC 3225, DOI 10.17487/RFC3225, December 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3225>.

   [RFC3597]  Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
              (RR) Types", RFC 3597, DOI 10.17487/RFC3597, September
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3597>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

   [RFC5952]  Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
              Address Text Representation", RFC 5952,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>.

   [RFC6066]  Eastlake 3rd, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Extensions: Extension Definitions", RFC 6066,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6066, January 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6066>.

   [RFC6147]  Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
              Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
              Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.

   [RFC6454]  Barth, A., "The Web Origin Concept", RFC 6454,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6454, December 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6454>.

   [RFC7050]  Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
              the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis",
              RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7050>.

   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.




Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   [RFC7595]  Thaler, D., Ed., Hansen, T., and T. Hardie, "Guidelines
              and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes", BCP 35,
              RFC 7595, DOI 10.17487/RFC7595, June 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7595>.

   [RFC7858]  Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D.,
              and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport
              Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

   [RFC8484]  Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
              (DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8484>.

   [WebSocket]
              Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol",
              RFC 6455, DOI 10.17487/RFC6455, December 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6455>.

14.2.  Informative References

   [AltSvc]   Nottingham, M., McManus, P., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
              Alternative Services", RFC 7838, DOI 10.17487/RFC7838,
              April 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7838>.

   [DNSTerm]  Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
              Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
              January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.

   [FETCH]    "Fetch Living Standard", May 2020,
              <https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/>.

   [I-D.draft-bellis-dnsop-http-record-00]
              Bellis, R., "A DNS Resource Record for HTTP", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-bellis-dnsop-http-record-
              00, 3 November 2018, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
              draft-bellis-dnsop-http-record-00.txt>.






Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   [I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-aname-03]
              Finch, T., Hunt, E., Dijk, P., Eden, A., and W. Mekking,
              "Address-specific DNS aliases (ANAME)", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-dnsop-aname-03, 15 April 2019,
              <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-
              aname-03.txt>.

   [RFC2782]  Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
              specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2782>.

   [RFC6895]  Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
              Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 6895, DOI 10.17487/RFC6895,
              April 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6895>.

   [URI]      Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

Appendix A.  Comparison with alternatives

   The SVCB and HTTPSSVC record types closely resemble, and are inspired
   by, some existing record types and proposals.  A complaint with all
   of the alternatives is that web clients have seemed unenthusiastic
   about implementing them.  The hope here is that by providing an
   extensible solution that solves multiple problems we will overcome
   the inertia and have a path to achieve client implementation.

A.1.  Differences from the SRV RR type

   An SRV record [RFC2782] can perform a similar function to the SVCB
   record, informing a client to look in a different location for a
   service.  However, there are several differences:

   *  SRV records are typically mandatory, whereas clients will always
      continue to function correctly without making use of SVCB.

   *  SRV records cannot instruct the client to switch or upgrade
      protocols, whereas SVCB can signal such an upgrade (e.g. to
      HTTP/2).

   *  SRV records are not extensible, whereas SVCB and HTTPSSVC can be
      extended with new parameters.






Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


A.2.  Differences from the proposed HTTP record

   Unlike [I-D.draft-bellis-dnsop-http-record-00], this approach is
   extensible to cover Alt-Svc and Encrypted ClientHello use-cases.
   Like that proposal, this addresses the zone apex CNAME challenge.

   Like that proposal, it remains necessary to continue to include
   address records at the zone apex for legacy clients.

A.3.  Differences from the proposed ANAME record

   Unlike [I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-aname-03], this approach is extensible
   to cover Alt-Svc and ECH use-cases.  This approach also does not
   require any changes or special handling on either authoritative or
   master servers, beyond optionally returning in-bailiwick additional
   records.

   Like that proposal, this addresses the zone apex CNAME challenge for
   clients that implement this.

   However, with this SVCB proposal, it remains necessary to continue to
   include address records at the zone apex for legacy clients.  If
   deployment of this standard is successful, the number of legacy
   clients will fall over time.  As the number of legacy clients
   declines, the operational effort required to serve these users
   without the benefit of SVCB indirection should fall.  Server
   operators can easily observe how much traffic reaches this legacy
   endpoint, and may remove the apex's address records if the observed
   legacy traffic has fallen to negligible levels.

A.4.  Comparison with separate RR types for AliasForm and ServiceForm

   Abstractly, functions of AliasForm and ServiceForm are independent,
   so it might be tempting to specify them as separate RR types.
   However, this would result in a serious performance impairment,
   because clients cannot rely on their recursive resolver to follow
   SVCB aliases (unlike CNAME).  Thus, clients would have to issue
   queries for both RR types in parallel, potentially at each step of
   the alias chain.  Recursive resolvers that implement the
   specification would, upon receipt of a ServiceForm query, emit both a
   ServiceForm and an AliasForm query to the authoritative.  Thus,
   splitting the RR type would double, or in some cases triple, the load
   on clients and servers, and would not reduce implementation
   complexity.







Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


Appendix B.  Design Considerations and Open Issues

   This draft is intended to be a work-in-progress for discussion.  Many
   details are expected to change with subsequent refinement.  Some
   known issues or topics for discussion are listed below.

B.1.  Record Name

   Naming is hard.  "SVCB" and "HTTPSSVC" are proposed as placeholders
   that are easy to search for and replace when a final name is chosen.
   Other names for this record might include B, ALTSVC, HTTPS, HTTPSSRV,
   HTTPSSVC, SVCHTTPS, or something else.

B.2.  Generality

   The SVCB record was designed as a generalization of HTTPSSVC, based
   on feedback requesting a solution that applied to protocols other
   than HTTP.  Past efforts to over-generalize have not met with broad
   success, but we hope that HTTPSSVC and SVCB have struck an acceptable
   balance between generality and focus.

B.3.  Wire Format

   Advice from experts in DNS wire format best practices would be
   greatly appreciated to refine the proposed details, overall.

B.4.  Whether to include Weight

   Some other similar mechanisms such as SRV have a weight in addition
   to priority.  That is excluded here for simplicity.  It could always
   be added as an optional SVCB parameter.

Appendix C.  Change history

   *  draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-03

      -  Revised chain length limit requirements

      -  Revised IANA registry rules for SvcParamKeys

      -  Require HTTPS clients to implement SNI

      -  Update terminology for Encrypted ClientHello

      -  Clarifications: non-default ports, transport proxies, HSTS
         procedure, WebSocket behavior, wire format, IP hints, inner/
         outer ClientHello with ECH




Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 38]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


      -  Various textual and ABNF corrections

   *  draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-02

      -  All changes to Alt-Svc have been removed

      -  Expanded and reorganized examples

      -  Priority zero is now the definition of AliasForm

      -  Repeated SvcParamKeys are no longer allowed

      -  The "=" sign may be omitted in a key=value pair if the value is
         also empty

      -  In the wire format, SvcParamKeys must be in sorted order

      -  New text regarding how to handle resolution timeouts

      -  Expanded description of recursive resolver behavior

      -  Much more precise description of the intended ALPN behavior

      -  Match the HSTS specification's language on HTTPS enforcement

      -  Removed 'esniconfig=""' mechanism and simplified ESNI
         connection logic

   *  draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-01

      -  Reduce the emphasis on conversion between HTTPSSVC and Alt-Svc

      -  Make the "untrusted channel" concept more precise.

      -  Make SvcFieldPriority = 0 the definition of AliasForm, instead
         of a requirement.

   *  draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-00

      -  Document an optimization for optimistic pre-connection.  (Chris
         Wood)

      -  Relax IP hint handling requirements.  (Eric Rescorla)

   *  draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-00

      -  Generalize to an SVCB record, with special-case handling for
         Alt-Svc and HTTPS separated out to dedicated sections.



Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 39]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


      -  Split out a separate HTTPSSVC record for the HTTPS use-case.

      -  Remove the explicit SvcRecordType=0/1 and instead make the
         AliasForm vs ServiceForm be implicit.  This was based on
         feedback recommending against subtyping RR type.

      -  Remove one optimization.

   *  draft-nygren-httpbis-httpssvc-03

      -  Change redirect type for HSTS-style behavior from 302 to 307 to
         reduce ambiguities.

   *  draft-nygren-httpbis-httpssvc-02

      -  Remove the redundant length fields from the wire format.

      -  Define a SvcDomainName of "." for SvcRecordType=1 as being the
         HTTPSSVC RRNAME.

      -  Replace "hq" with "h3".

   *  draft-nygren-httpbis-httpssvc-01

      -  Fixes of record name.  Replace references to "HTTPSVC" with
         "HTTPSSVC".

   *  draft-nygren-httpbis-httpssvc-00

      -  Initial version

Authors' Addresses

   Ben Schwartz
   Google

   Email: bemasc@google.com


   Mike Bishop
   Akamai Technologies

   Email: mbishop@evequefou.be


   Erik Nygren
   Akamai Technologies




Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 40]


Internet-Draft        SVCB and HTTPSSVC RRs for DNS            June 2020


   Email: erik+ietf@nygren.org


















































Schwartz, et al.        Expires 13 December 2020               [Page 41]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/