IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Thu, 06 September 2001 16:50 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 MAA02386; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:50:10 -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 MAA27877; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:45:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27851 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:45:18 -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 MAA02228 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:43:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (205-140-116-228.ip.theriver.com [205.140.116.228]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f86Gj3f29539; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:45:03 -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 f86Gimq00382; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:44:48 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <200109061644.f86Gimq00382@grosse.bisbee.fugue.com>
To: Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com>
cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] How to encode DNS labels in DHCP options
In-Reply-To: Message from Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com> of "Thu, 06 Sep 2001 11:23:46 +0200." <20010906092043.IUA16067.fep04-svc.swip.net@there>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 09:44:48 -0700
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

> I'll admit I don't know much about the DNS binary name format, but I'm going 
> to ask: why is it better to encode DNS names in binary than ASCII?

The short answer to this is that you shouldn't ask questions like this
on a working group mailing list - you should learn about the format.
However, in this case reading RFC1035 probably wouldn't answer your
question.   The answer is that the RFC1035 format is at least
theoretically capable of handling unicode, whereas an ASCII
representation obviously is not.

			       _MelloN_

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email