You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-01. We should add this record as a private RR type for the time being. Wireformat is fairly straight forward, except for the value field, which resembles TXT but not entirely and it can be switched to something else by a previous value in the RR.
I was thinking off:
// SVCB RR. See RFC xxxx (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-01)
type SVCB struct {
Hdr RR_Header
Priority uint16
Target string `dns:"domain-name"`
Value []string `dns:"txt"` // this is wrong, if priority == 0 this must be something else entirely
}
The draft talks about SvcFieldPriority instead of Priority, which I really dislike, hence Priority in the above example. Target is a better name than "SvcDomainName" which is used in the draft - this also mimics the SRV record a bit.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-01. We should add this record as a private RR type for the time being. Wireformat is fairly straight forward, except for the value field, which resembles TXT but not entirely and it can be switched to something else by a previous value in the RR.
I was thinking off:
The draft talks about SvcFieldPriority instead of
Priority
, which I really dislike, hencePriority
in the above example.Target
is a better name than "SvcDomainName" which is used in the draft - this also mimics the SRV record a bit.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: