On 26 mar 2013, at 09:22, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote:
> Now if that's a requirement, then "2 1 0" use-case is simply a waste
> of bits in DNS, we get the same result via "2 1 1", since both
> match the same element of the chain, but 2 1 1 is substantially
> more compact.
I agree "2 1 0" is a waste of bits - "2 x {1,2}" makes a lot more sense".
jakob
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
