Subject: Re: online signing draft

From: [email-masked] (Geoffrey Sisson)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:54:03 +0000 (GMT)

Ben Laurie <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Samuel Weiler wrote:
>
> > Better Increment & Decrement Functions
> 
> Geoff and I have been working on a rigorous definition of these, which I 
> hope he'll post later today.

Now available at:

    http://www.panix.com/~geoff/draft-sisson-dnsext-dns-name-p-s-00.txt

Regards

Geoff

--
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: Niall O'Reilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:42:31 +0000

>     http://www.panix.com/~geoff/draft-sisson-dnsext-dns-name-p-s-00.txt

IMO, a refinement to the notation

     " non-printable octet values are expressed as three-digit octal
       numbers preceded by a backslash "

allowing a decimal repeat count in parens between the backslash and the
first of the three octal digits would immensely enhance readability. As
a consequence, any unwittingly-introduced errors would be more easily
noticed.

For example, in the first example in section 5.1,

       x' = \377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\
            \377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\
            \377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\
            \377\377\377\377\377.\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\
            \377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\
            \377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\
            \377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\
            \377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377.\377\377\377\377\377\
            \377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\
            \377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\
            \377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\
            \377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377.fon\377\
            \377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\
            \377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\
            \377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\
            \377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377.exa\
            mple.com.

could then be represented as

       x' = \(50)377.\(63)377.\(63)377.fon\(60)377.example.com.

if I've counted all those octal-encoded octets correctly.

Best regards,

Niall O'Reilly

PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9

---

From: Niall O'Reilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:08:55 +0000

>     http://www.panix.com/~geoff/draft-sisson-dnsext-dns-name-p-s-00.txt

in which may be found the following text.

>    3.  If the least significant (right-most) octet in the least
>        significant (left-most) label is the minimum sort value, remove
>        that octet; otherwise decrement the value of the octet, skipping
>        any values which correspond to upper-case US-ASCII letters, and
>        then append the label with as many octets as possible of the
>        maximum sort value.  In either case, continue to the next step.

I think there's one other special character you have to guard against!

>        ... skipping
>        any values which correspond either to upper-case US-ASCII 
> letters
>        or to the dot (\056), and ...

/Niall