Hi Philip,
On 11/01/16 17:54, Philip Homburg wrote:
> Unless I missed some tricks why the CBOR version compresses a lot better.
The trick isn't really CBOR (which you can compare to protobuf/message
pack) but to discard "unnecessary" information (according to the C-DNS
specification).
Cheers,
On 01/11/2016 17:54, Philip Homburg wrote:
If find it hard to believe that after compression, the BSON encoded
version of the DNS data would be a lot smaller than just the
raw DNS data.
There is a not a lot of redundancy in the DNS encoding.
Certainly there is not a lot of redundancy in the
>We have just published a new draft on a proposed format for DNS packet
>capture - please see below for details. We would very much appreciate
>feedback on the overall problem discussed here in addition to the
>details of the format proposed.
Did you consider not (partially) decoding the DNS
Hi Sara,
On 10/31/16 18:22, Sara Dickinson wrote:
> https://github.com/dns-stats/draft-dns-capture-format
An overall question, did you consider a CBOR extension tag (which does
not require a RFC)?
The "file type id" content is not specified but in the CDDL it says
"DNS-STAT", if any should it
Hi All,
We have just published a new draft on a proposed format for DNS packet capture
- please see below for details. We would very much appreciate feedback on the
overall problem discussed here in addition to the details of the format
proposed.
Please note: There are three diagrams in
