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 name which is something like "rrtypeNNNN", > and numeric value associated with the name, which is NNNN. TYPENNNN is reserved for all NNNN [0..65535]. Why reinvent the wheel? > The RDATA would be encoded as a specified-length base-64 encoded binary > blob. Why switch to base64 rather than continuing with hex? > The RDATALEN specifies the length of the RDATA. > > As to maintaining the specification, given that this is a -00 version, it > might need to be clarified. > > I think that this would best be handled in an IANA registry, on the basis > of the existing registered DNS types, names, etc. > > I think there is perhaps a need to specify how to craft the entries in that > registry. > > Long-term, it may be better to include the encoding as table entries for > the DNS types, as first-class citizen(s) within those other registry > entries. > > All of this is flexible. > > Brian > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
