Re: [Cbor] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-lenders-dns-cbor-02.txt

[Martine Sophie Lenders <[e-mail]>]

Hello Vadim,

There are some hints on the potential of the compression in Appendix A, 
and I quoted some numbers in my talks at the meetings. However, you are 
right, of course: The document should stand on its own and a comparison 
table that shows the benefits and drawbacks of the format is needed. We 
will put that into the next iteration.

Best
Martine

On 15.03.23 20:38, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> This drafts lacks rationale for itself to exist, that is, comparison
> table with "standard" DNS mesage format (already known to be efficient)
> showing where CBOR version is better, and how much (and cases where
> it's not). Probably that should be in Appendix A.
> 
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 22:39:09 +0100
> Martine Sophie Lenders <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> we submitted a new version of draft-lenders-dns-cbor. Changes include:
>>
>> - Update definitions to accommodate for TID and flags, as well as
>> more sections in query
>> - Clarify fallback to wire-format
>>
> [...]
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-02.txt
>> Status:
>>
>> Abstract:
>>      This document specifies a compressed data format of DNS messages
>>      using the Concise Binary Object Representation [RFC8949].  The
>>      primary purpose is to keep DNS messages small in constrained
>>      networks.
>>
> 
> 
>