On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf(_at_)frobbit(_dot_)se>
wrote:
On 4 jan 2014, at 18:15, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Please read my words as carefully as a wrote them.
I did :-)
There are excellent reasons why variable length IPv6 addresses would have
been a bad idea. That is why I separated considerations for IP layer, DNS
and Applications.
At the application layer, the concerns are very different. Variable length
identifiers are not a problem. We use them in RFC822, ASN.1, XML and JSON.
I do not see we MUST have variable length addresses in whatever protocol
we have.
In DNS for example, we do not. Yes, lots of them, but not unlimited number
of them.
In my original post I set out three cases, IP, DNS and everything else. I
stated that the extensibility requirement should apply as a MUST only to
everything else and that it should only apply to DNS if there was a major
backwards incompatible change.
The response I got was that people cut the post to say all code points
should be effectively unlimited and then gave first IP as an example and
now you are giving DNS as an example.
DNS is not an application layer protocol, it is one of the layers on which
applications build.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/