On September 2, 2005 at 16:39, Dave Crocker wrote:
Then this nomenclature should be explicitly defined to avoid confusion
(at least I was; maybe I am not representive of the intended audience).
The CSV specification relies on familiarity with the relevant DNS
specifications. Otherwise each specification would have to fully define
everything all over again.
Checking out RFC-1035, Doug is correct about the MSbit starting
with zero. However, the CSA spec uses bit 1, 2, 3, etc, while
RFC-1035 starts bit count with 0.
Also, in the CSA spec, bit 1 actually refers to bit 15 (according to
RFC-1035 terminology) for a 16 integer.
Therefore, it appears to me that the CSA is inconsistent with
DNS terminology. The CSA specification should either be changed
to match RFC-1035 nomenclature or CSA should explicitly define
the nomenclature it uses.
If I am mistaken in my assessment, can you please cite the relevant
documents so I can familiarize myself with DNS terminology.
Is there something that supercedes RFC-1035?
Thanks,
--ewh
_______________________________________________
ietf-clear mailing list
ietf-clear(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-clear