Subject: Re: half time report on wcard

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:53:12 +0200

> So, at the half way point I need to make sure I have the right label 
> type indicator.  Does anyone know where the label type of '00' is 
> defined?  I can't locate it in 1035.

Is this what you are looking for:

 1035 section 3.1 1st paragraph

 The high order two bits of every length octet must be zero, and the
 remaining six bits of the length field limit the label to 63 octets or
 less.

-- Olaf

---------------------------------| Olaf M. Kolkman
---------------------------------| RIPE NCC

--
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: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:05:50 -0400

Yeah.  I thought/knew it was in there, but couldn't find the right 
grep to pull it up when I looked.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

Sponge Bob Square Pants?  I'm still trying to figure out the Macarena.

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:41:58 +0200

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:19:05 -0400
Edward Lewis <[email-masked]> wrote:

(...)
> 
> In summary - if there is a discussion to be had here, this is the 
> wrong last call to carry it out in.
>

 It is important to acknowledge that the critique on the draft was that
 the draft supposedly introduced incompatibility with other documents.
 The argument currently ongoing is whether or not that critique is
 correct and/or relevant, that discussion is IMHO still within scope of
 the last call. 

 However, unless new arguments are brought to the table the discussion
 on NXDOMAIN, RFC 2308 and incompatibilities is to be concluded. I
 propose that participants summarize their arguments on this matter and
 not further react on the mails on this particular subject.

 Please let us not repeat arguments ad-infinitum, remain courteous
 and try to focus on the document at hand.

 I would like to repeat the call to provide motivated support or
 opposition to the document or, if there is critique, provide motivation
 and alternative text.

 -- Olaf Kolkman
    DNSEXT Co-Chair.

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Aug 2003 18:29:22 -0000

Olaf M. Kolkman writes:
> alternative text

The alternative to this particular RFC 2119 violation is to simply omit
the offending sentence from the document. Wildcards have exactly the
same semantics whether or not these NXDOMAINs are allowed.

Why did wcard-clarify stray into NXDOMAIN issues in the first place? Why
have we still not heard a clear statement of the scope of wcard-clarify?
I had assumed that this was a matter of poor communication, but now I'm
getting the feeling that the _authors_ don't have a clear idea of what
their document was supposed to cover.

---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago