On 08/05/2018 20:27, Richard Gibson wrote: > This update addresses all of my earlier comments with the exception of > implementation-specific extension data using namespaced string keys (as > opposed to negative-integer keys)—which I assume to be intentional > because of the "String keys would significantly bloat the file size" > text in Section 7.1—and the ability to support variable truncation of IP > addresses—particularly for identifying the full addresses of responders > while truncating the addresses of requestors, but also for retaining > more requestor precision in some subnets than others.
Apologies; we'd opened GitHub issues for both of these, intending to keep you updated, and due to mis-communication between the authors didn't report updates and feedback post-IETF 101. I have bought these issues up to date with our current responses. https://github.com/dns-stats/draft-dns-capture-format/issues/58 https://github.com/dns-stats/draft-dns-capture-format/issues/60 While there are other concerns listed in the above, we've not to date had other support for namespace string keys or variable IP address truncation on the list; we specifically raised the latter issue in our presentation at IETF101, and had hallway feedback that the complexity did not seem warranted for the limited use case. We'd like to hear comments from others on these specific issues on the list. -- Jim Hague - [email protected] Never trust a computer you can't lift. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
