ericorth

I don't quite understand the goal here. Is the suggestion that a "." alias should prevent connection for "http://"-scheme requests? Doesn't it already do that in the current draft? "If...

> That would mean acting as if you received a redirect with Location: https://. No. 'this "https" URL' obviously refers to the query name, not the alias target, so it...

> All protocols obtain at least some benefit by not having clients waste time and resources on doomed connection attempts. If the client is the only agent wasting time and...

> That's what a SHOULD imperative does. The difference is that MAY doesn't recommend behavior at all. In principle, I don't completely disagree, but IETF seems to hate writing SHOULD...

> The standard currently states that the client SHOULD abandon the attempt if it can't resolve a record over encrypted or signed channels, but MAY abandon it if it can...

Good point. If there's ever a bis, maybe it would make sense to make them both "SHOULD abandon" for the general SVCB case, and give HTTPS the more specific guidance...