Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-key-tag-02.txt

(speaking for myself only)

In 5.1, I would think that I'd prefer a standard size, but that doesn't
mean I should rely on it.

For the moment on 5.3.1 . Maybe some text that "an implementer SHOULD sort
their tags" but that mean that one can expect them that way.

tim

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
wrote:

> On 11 Jul 2016, at 7:50, Bob Harold wrote:
>
> 5.1. Query Format
>> What if the key tag is less than 0x1000 hex or 4096 decimal - Should the
>> resulting hex have leading zeros (always 4 characters?) or not?
>> For example, would 4095 decimal be _ta-0fff or _ta-fff  ?  (I prefer
>> always
>> 4 characters hex, but it is your doc.)
>>
>
> It is a WG doc, not our doc. Do others have a preference on this?
>
> 5.3.1. Interaction With Aggressive Negative Caching
>> I would prefer that the tags always be sorted.  No big deal for two tags,
>> but if there was a compromise or mistake during a rollover, there might be
>> three keys and the savings in records might be significant.  If you decide
>> to specify sorting, I think it would go in section 5.1 and not in 5.3.1.
>>
>
> Would the "savings in records" really be significant? The problems caused
> by people not consistently sorting could make things worse, not better.
> Related: there might be other reasons for three tags, such as during an
> algorithm rollover.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>