On 12/10/2017 08:14, Bob Hinden wrote: ... >> btw, I'd note that RFC8106 uses the binary representation of domain >> names for the DNS search list option. I guess the pros and cons on >> text vs binary should be largely the same - an implementation of >> RFC8106 also needs to parse the value and is quite likely to dump it >> in the textual form, and the data length could be a concern as an RA >> option. If we were okay with the binary form in RFC8106, I don't see >> why we aren't for draft-bruneau-intarea-provisioning-domains. > > I agree. Further, I think there would have to a very good reason to do > something different that how RFC8106 handles this. Having two different ways > to encode DNS info in RA options seems like a very bad idea.
+ several I recently had occasion to parse some DNS RRs containing non-ASCII bytes, and life would have been so much easier if I'd been given binary instead of escape-coded ASCII. I haven't followed the details, but I do hope that if you stick to ASCII you will use the RFC 1035 convention for escaping non-ASCII bytes. That's what I would expect existing code to support. Brian _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
