IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] How to encode DNS labels in DHCP options

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Tue, 04 September 2001 22:06 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29319; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 18:06:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA09723; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 17:58:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA09698 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 17:58:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29103 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 17:56:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (dsl081-147-128.chi1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.147.128]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f84Lw9f25575; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f84Lw4s00342; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 17:58:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200109042158.f84Lw4s00342@grosse.bisbee.fugue.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>
cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] How to encode DNS labels in DHCP options
In-Reply-To: Message from Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com> of "Tue, 04 Sep 2001 16:21:13 EDT." <200109042021.QAA30257@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 17:58:04 -0400
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

The idea of using the RFC1035 encoding is that it is exactly what the
DNS protocol currently specifies.   This means that if we use this
format, we don't have to worry that it will be our fault that the
encoding doesn't work.   When IDN happens, it will presumably work on
top of the existing packet format, so that means that what we have
specified should also work.

So IMHO any new DHCP option that contains a domain name should use the
RFC1035 format.   I can't remember the details with SIP, but I *think*
that what is being encoded is not a domain name, and that is the
reason for the difference.

			       _MelloN_


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email