Subject: RE: nsec++

From: Roy Arends <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:01:37 +0100 (CET)

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Andrew Draper wrote:

> Roy,
>
> I think the maximum size of my encoding is the same as the one specified
> in version 0 of the draft.  Use 256 blocks, each 34 octets long, gives
> 8704 octets total.
>
> All I suggest changing is to allow the start value of each block to be
> on a multiple of 32 instead of a multiple of 256.

So the worst case scenario would not be that different. The 'multiplier'
would now be 32 instead of 256, where you'd have a special graph-like
algortihm to determine the most optimized presentation.

You'd have to calculate all possible encodings to determine which one is
the shortest.

I don't think RDATA size is really that important to allow for discrete
mathematics to determine the shortest representation.

The current one (nsec++) satisfies all requirements. Yours adds
complexity.

Roy

--
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/>