Subject: Re: NSEC3 Issue 27: creating a flag octet.

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 10:53:47 -0500

At 10:14 AM -0400 10/19/06, David Blacka wrote:

>not be the default position.  A more reasonable default position would
>be the original proposal: one flag octet, 2 iterations octets. Or even
>the alternate original proposal: one flag octet, 3 iterations octets.

Why not 2 flag octets and and 2 iterations octets?

As in - if the current iterations is 4 octets and you want to carve 
out a flag octet, meaning that you have 4 octets to play with - I 
would think a three-octet field would be quite odd and confusing. 
Even if you don't need 16 flags, why not do that just to preserve 
alignment to 16 and 32 bit boundaries?

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Secrets of Success #107: Why arrive at 7am for the good parking space?
Come in at 11am while the early birds drive out to lunch.

--
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/>