In message <1AE7298D-CC55-4284-AA3F-7492249C4182(_at_)netnod(_dot_)se>,
=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F
=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?= writes:
On 27 feb 2015, at 16:02, Andrew Newton <andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> wrote:
- I am also nervous over the size of the RRSet, i.e. same issue I see
with NAPTR, and the reason why I added the prefix (like SRV) to the URI RR
I plan to move to use this advice. Thanks.
The encoding is important, I really like having multiple TXT strings
(length-prefixed) but then "the last one" should be "the rest of RDATA"
Maybe Mark and others should think about how to do that encoding of the
RDATA... I am lacking ideas here. Part from telling how many TXT strings
there are.
paf
I don't really care about the encoding as long as it is *stable*.
The wire format has gone from a series of <len><value> pairs that
get concatenated for use (up to draft-faltstrom-uri-07) to just
<value> with a implict length (draft-faltstrom-uri-08). The type
code was allocated against draft-faltstrom-uri-05.
Below are some of the tradeoffs that result from the different wire
encodings.
Master files need to preserve wire encoding (for DNSSEC) so
<len><value> pairs restrict how master files are written. This
leads to lines which are potentially over a 1000 bytes long due to
\DDD encodings of non-ascii.
With a plain <value> and concatenation you don't have to have long
lines in master files and you can print the field out over multiple
lines knowing you can recombine the field.
example.net. URI ( 0 1 "http://foo.bar/";
"xxx?lhllshdflldhlh;"
"yyy?lhjjgjfkakfjkfjak" )
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org