Cullen Jennings <fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> writes:
On 4/10/06 6:34 PM, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
--On Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 11:26 +1000 Mark Andrews
<Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org> wrote:
On 4/10/06 4:31 PM, "Mark Andrews" <Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org>
wrote:
Did the base32 extended hex version get used in the SASL
work? Can we upda
te
the reference or if it is not needed not just remove it.
base32 extended hex is being / will be used for NSEC3 as it
preserves the sort order.
Great - perhaps we could add a reference to that.
Work in progress. draft-ietf-dnsext-nsec3-04.txt needs to
be update to say base32 extended hex and reference this
draft.
But such a reference from the Base16, Base32,... draft is not
normative. To simply give (clearly non-normative) examples,
with each encoding, of where it is used or expected to be used
seems to me to helpful to the reader and to cost almost nothing.
john
I was concerned that we might be defining an option that no one needed and
that would just encourage more variations where they were not needed. The
fact that nsec3 has chosen to use this particular form is good enough proof
for me that there is a need for the base32 extended hex form. I agree a
informative ref to the work in progress will help people fine examples of
where it was used and perhaps have a better understanding of where and why
they might pick a particular form. All sounds good.
I agree with this discussion, and have added an informational
reference to the NSEC3 document in the base32hex section. The updated
version can be found at:
http://josefsson.org/base-encoding/draft-josefsson-rfc3548bis.txt
with rfcdiff's to the -02 version in last call at:
http://josefsson.org/base-encoding/draft-josefsson-rfc3548bis-from--02.diff.html
Thanks.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf