Hi Ben,
Dne 11. 05. 21 v 18:08 Ben Schwartz napsal(a):
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 3:31 AM libor.peltan <libor.pel...@nic.cz
<mailto:libor.pel...@nic.cz>> wrote:
If there really is a strong reason for putting multiple key-value
records into one RData (instead of one RRSet), it should be
described somewhere clearly
OK, I've proposed text documenting the reasoning here:
https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/pull/323/files
<https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/pull/323/files>.
The proposed text is:
Thank you for at least this effort.
Storing a key-value map within a single RR, rather than placing each
key-value
pair in a separate RR, provides the following advantages:
* It enables a familiar key=value zone file syntax that matches zone
authors'
experience with command-line arguments and other typical key-value
mappings.
* It avoids requiring zone file authors to manage inter-pair binding IDs.
* It makes each record independently meaningful, consistent with the usual
convention for DNS records (c.f. SRV, MX, AAAA, etc.).
* It saves at least 11 bytes of overhead per parameter by avoiding
repetition of
the name, type, class, TTL, and inter-pair binding ID.
May I be wrong, but I think that name, type, class and TTL are not
repeated in one RRSet with multiple RData. Not in wire format and not
necessarily even in zonefile. (?)
The inter-pair binding ID would be not too large, maybe it would cancel
out with some avoided textual dash :)
* It provides a wire format whose structural nesting matches the
logical scope
of each key=value pair, and avoids requiring cross-RR reconstruction of
bindings by the client.
Libor
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
