On 22/10/2019 17:17, Normen Kowalewski wrote:
FAIW - i was curious to see if RFC 8415 of November 2018, the update of
the now officially obsoleted RFC 3315, uses some other wording, but it
also just speaks about 4 octets that jointly are an unsigned integer
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8415#section-21.21
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8415#section-8
All values in the message header and in options are in network byte
order.
Pretty clear in my view.
The RFC obviously expects an implementor to know which data type in his
specific environment and implementation would match this requirement -
obviously for example it would be good if the on the wire format would
not change by big endian/little endian diversions and so on...
No, the RFC (unless otherwise noted) expects all unsigned integers to be
used in ntohl(3) and htonl(3) (or equivalents thereof depending on
platform and integer size) to ensure endian does not affect on wire format.
Roy
_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
