Subject: Re: Could binary encoding really be the answer?

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:44:14 -0700

On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 01:30, Peter Koch wrote:
> > Perhaps rather than just a single new record type, consider defining a
> > structure composed of new elements where each element is a record type.
> > 
> > 1) An address type for CIDR notation for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
> 
> other than APL/RFC 3123?

Peter,

Thank you for the reference. This RFC would need to be elevated to
standards track and be one of the types supported.  This would mean only
2 new record types need definition.  An Inverse SRV record pointing to
3123 address records with a policy field and a protocol selector
function.  With this, a PTR type using the same selector function as a
domain bridging mechanism.  If this can happen, add in an SRV record
also using the selector function to reinforce this feature.

-Doug

---

From: "Douglas Otis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:52:53 +0200

Peter,

-Doug

---

From: "Douglas Otis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:02:06 +0200

Peter,

-Doug