On Wed, 2018-12-19 at 13:42 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 01:35:02PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-12-19 at 13:16 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > Lada, > > > > > > RFC 7950 says: > > > > > > The "position" statement, which is optional, takes as an argument a > > > non-negative integer value that specifies the bit's position within a > > > hypothetical bit field. The position value MUST be in the range 0 to > > > 4294967295, and it MUST be unique within the bits type. > > > > > > Neither the XML nor the JSON encoding rulse uses the position > > > property. I believe the interpretation of the position field is going > > > to be protocol specific. DNS may do things in its own way, a CBOR > > > encoding of bits may do a different thing. > > > > So do you suggest to keep the position equal to the number in the IANA > > registry? > > > > That seems to be the most obvious thing to do.
OK. It will be certainly more palatable to DNS folks. Thanks, Lada > > /js > -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
