I have not had time to look at these drafts, but I think there is
significant overlap with John Levine's DNS description language.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levine-dnsextlang
Its extension mechanism uses the DNS to store RDATA descriptions, so in
principle software will not need to be
IIRC, there is support for generic-named types similar to BIND's record
type name/number thing.
The RRTYPE would be a given a name which is something like rrtype,
and numeric value associated with the name, which is .
The RDATA would be encoded as a specified-length base-64 encoded
Can we change the name, please?
Spartacus Club was the name of the pedophile rapist organization at
the center of the on ongoing UK criminal enquiry involving 8 MPs and
three police forces. There is also an international dimension.
There is a significant probability it is going to become a PR
Second this. Also please do a brief wikipedia search before picking the next
name?.
Mehmet
On Nov 12, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker ph...@hallambaker.com
wrote:
Can we change the name, please?
Spartacus Club was the name of the pedophile rapist organization at
the center of
There are basically two approaches to handling new record types in any 'DNS
language' definition:
1. Have a good extension mechanism built in; or
2. Issue an updated language specification each time a new record is agreed.
Personally I think 2 is a big step backwards and 1 is much easier if
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.
The RRTYPE would be a given a
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.
Does anyone know how Spartacus
(draft-dickson-dnsop-spartacus-{lang,system}, on the agenda for today)
handles new record types that may be invented tomorrow? I find nothing
in the drafts, which describe the JSON structure for today's record
types, but not for future types.
