On Jun 12, 2015, at 5:07 PM, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> I'd like to call your attention to a few of the open issues called out
> in the draft.
>
> The first:
>
> The specific logic that an Authoritative Nameserver uses to choose a
> tailored response is not in the scope of this document.
> Implem
Just to add my ยข2 on this point:
In the last version of the draft that I wrote (and the one used for
most implementations), there was no MUST/SHOULD terminology, so it was
a little vague.
Reason we've added the truncation at the time is to save space. This
is DNS, where saving bytes is sometimes
Mark Andrews writes:
>
> In message <21882.15475.138790.416...@gro.dd.org>, Dave Lawrence writes:
> > Tony Finch writes:
> > > Wouldn't it be much simpler to use the normal fixed address length, so
> > > that serializers and parsers can just choose a bcopy based on the address
> > > family?
> >
In message <21882.15475.138790.416...@gro.dd.org>, Dave Lawrence writes:
> Tony Finch writes:
> > Wouldn't it be much simpler to use the normal fixed address length, so
> > that serializers and parsers can just choose a bcopy based on the address
> > family?
>
> Simple in its way, yes, but of cou
Tony Finch writes:
> Wouldn't it be much simpler to use the normal fixed address length, so
> that serializers and parsers can just choose a bcopy based on the address
> family?
Simple in its way, yes, but of course there still has to be packet
parsing checks based on declared lengths. That's whe
Dave Lawrence wrote:
>
> But your code already has to check that the option length correctly
> matches up. Is anyone else seeing undue additional code complexity
> here?
Wouldn't it be much simpler to use the normal fixed address length, so
that serializers and parsers can just choose a bcopy ba
Mark Andrews writes:
> 10.0.0.0/7 requires checking 3 extra octets for all zeros. Thats
> additional code that needs to be written to cover the SHOULD that
> doesn't need to be written to cover a MUST.
But your code already has to check that the option length correctly
matches up. Is anyone else
In message <21881.57848.956801.244...@gro.dd.org>, Dave Lawrence writes:
> Mark Andrews writes:
> > why is the last sentence here with a SHOULD.
>
> It technically doesn't hurt anything to include them, because the
> option length field of the opt rdata tells you how long the variable
> part is.
Mark Andrews writes:
> why is the last sentence here with a SHOULD.
It technically doesn't hurt anything to include them, because the
option length field of the opt rdata tells you how long the variable
part is. If there is an important technical reason that MUST is
required here for interoperabi
