Subject: Re: nsec++

From: Miek Gieben <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:33:09 +0100

[On 04 Dec, @17:39, Paul wrote in "Re: nsec++ ..."]
> > ...
> > I think we don't want to make the NSEC more difficult than it already is
> > (compared to the NXT definition). 
> > 
> > So I would vote to keep the current NSEC definition as it as and get
> > used to the fact is takes up a few more bytes,
> 
> it's all just fun and games until microsoft decides to sign zones containing
> their private-allocation types (in the 65000 range.)

so with this definition of the NSEC record we will not see an 7 to 10 times
increase in zone sizes with DNSSEC? 

grtz Miek

--
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/>