Subject: an example of why flag bits are bad things

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 16:01:54 -0400

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-josefsson-dns-url-08.txt

This is a draft that is defining an URI based on dns.  For example:

    dns:www.example.org?class=IN;type=A

as the encoding for QNAME, QCLASS, and QTYPE.

This scheme won't be able to convey DS-ok or DNSSEC-ok, and perhaps 
that's not desired, as it wouldn't be up to the application to care 
(or will it want to know if DNSSEC was 'done'?).

This is an example of an extension that is made possible if we stick 
to the basic principles of DNS.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

Your office is *not* a reality-based sit-com TV show.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 08:30:54 +1000

> (or will it want to know if DNSSEC was 'done'?).

	This was written well after EDNS was put onto standards
	track.  Failure to allow for flags is a error in this draft
	not in DNS.
 
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]