ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt> (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 23:48:56


--On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 13:42 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

...
I'm not opposed to having two separate RRTYPEs -- I just want
to see the rationale.  And what passes for use cases in the
draft appears to me to be  completely silent on that issue.

Especially since there is an IEEE-defined method for
representing a 48-bit address in the 64-bit format. Now you
mention it, why can't that be used in all cases?

I think that just proves the point I was trying to make while
stumbling around in ignorance.  No need at all for two RRTYPEs
or even for an indicator in the data other than IEEE's own
methods.  Or do I misunderstand your comment?

   john

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>