Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 12, 2014, at 1:26 PM, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > > In message > <cah1iciqxwowao8nm8k-x47qiwawery9+etuefygzfn3aj5w...@mail.gmail.com>, Brian > Dickson writes: >> >> IIRC, there is support for generic-named types similar to BIND's record >> type name/number thing. > > It is RFC3597 format not "BIND's record name/number thing". Yes, but I believe bind implements said RFC. (Incorporate by reference.) > >> The RRTYPE would be a given a name which is something like "rrtypeNNNN", >> and numeric value associated with the name, which is NNNN. > > TYPENNNN is reserved for all NNNN [0..65535]. Why reinvent the wheel? Note the word "like". Wheel not reinvented. TYPE is used. > >> The RDATA would be encoded as a specified-length base-64 encoded binary >> blob. > > Why switch to base64 rather than continuing with hex? It may indeed be hex. No objection to use of hex, hex it is. > >> The RDATALEN specifies the length of the RDATA. >> >> As to maintaining the specification, given that this is a -00 version, it >> might need to be clarified. >> >> I think that this would best be handled in an IANA registry, on the basis >> of the existing registered DNS types, names, etc. >> >> I think there is perhaps a need to specify how to craft the entries in that >> registry. >> >> Long-term, it may be better to include the encoding as table entries for >> the DNS types, as first-class citizen(s) within those other registry >> entries. >> >> All of this is flexible. >> >> Brian > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
