CNAME interaction clarification

[bemasc]

SVCB doesn't change anything about CNAME, or really have any interesting interaction with CNAME, but it's mentioned all over the text. We might be able to simplify this.

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

If I am not misinterpreting this, this seems to be the natural way CNAME works
and I am wondering if the text should not be removed from this section. My
general comment is that the text refers too much to CNAME. Probably only the
fall back function of CNAME should be mentioned in the main text and other
considerations may be moved to the appendix to ease the reading. This is
obviously just a comment.

"""
 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.
"""

I am not sure this is should be mentioned in the main part of the document and
maybe annex would be more appropriated.

[bemasc]

Also, a reader requested clarification that the alias form does not redirect queries for any other QTYPEs (unlike CNAME).

[bemasc]

Resolved by #209