Subject: Re: Large typecodes and DNSSEC

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:51:12 +0000

> I don't much like this either, but the WG has not chosen to rip the
> covers off of this particular piece of 2535.

and yet, can serious deployment (burning of roms containing the software)
begin without a defined solution for typecodes above 127?

> Ok, fair enough.  With the understanding that I am -not- taking a
> position on whether the WG should do anything about this at this time,
> here's a proposed encoding for you to use as a strawcritter.

michael graff and i here at isc have also experimented with several
encodings that would support typecodes above 127.  is it time for a
bake-off?  perhaps so, if olaf is rattling the WGLC sabre...

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 01:45:43 +0000

> You appear to be assuming some form of RDATA transcoding.  ...

yes.

> sig(2) == sig(2).  sig(ii) == sig(ii).  The fact that "2" and "ii" are
> different ways of writing the number two shouldn't matter unless
> somebody's translating from arabic to roman numbering en route.

a cache who converted an rdata from wire format to host-byte-order and
regenerated the wire format when queried for it could have that property.

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 22:55:42 +0000

> ...
> So I conclude that we probably don't need another bit.

<AOL>
Me, too!
</AOL>