John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > > I'm close to that. If a field is odd but it's a minor variant of something > else, such as the hex fields with optional hyphens or dots, it's easy enough > to include. Or if it seems like it might be useful in the future, like a > trailing list of domain names which could show up in something like CLONE, > might as well.
Yep. > Beyond that, I don't think anyone will ever reuse the odd arithmetic in LOC or > the data-dependent formats in IPSECKEY, so if I do anything for them, it'll be > something like Z[LOC] or Z[IPSECKEY] meaning do the appropriate special > hackery for that record type. Yep. My model was to treat special cases like these as a single field which just happens to have a particularly complicated implementation - multiple subfields etc. > Not sure what to do with the type bit maps in NSEC. They're reused in > NSEC3, and both records are certainly in active use. It's worth treating widely used and re-used RDATA fields as reusable field types :-) I'll have a look at your latest draft. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr8h punycode Humber, Thames, Dover, Wight: Variable 3 or 4. Smooth or slight. Fog patches. Moderate, occasionally very poor. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
