Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com> writes: > 1. Maybe I'm confused but it seems to me that the RESPONSE-CODE field of 12 > bits > plus the INFO-CODE field of 16 bits is 28 bits. So I don't understand the > 2nd > paragraph of Section 3.3 that talks about their concatenation fitting > within 24 > bits.
Yep, it turns out (like someone has previous suggested in this group) that I can't add. Or more likely I missed a change spot from previous versions where the lengths were different. Anyway, the latest version has greatly simplified this, though I may have missed another spot. We need to take one more last pass before asking for a LC. But it's late now and I'm going to bed instead of trying to assume my english parsing skills will pass mustard (a phrase I've never understood). > 2. On the code point space for INFO-CODE values, the maximum possible in 16 > bits is > 65535, not 65536. Actually, you just pointed out a spot in the "just posted" document that I missed *again*. Anyway, we'll increase the size of those ranges per your request as it makes sense. Though I'm not sure giving that much space to the first-come/first-served and experimental policies make that much sense. I think we'd prefer people write a specification for behaviour. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
