Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>, =?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F
=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?= writes:
> > On 27 feb 2015, at 16:02, Andrew Newton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > - I am also nervous over the size of the RRSet, i.e. same issue I see
> with NAPTR, and the reason why I added the prefix (like SRV) to the URI RR
> >
> > I plan to move to use this advice. Thanks.
>
> The encoding is important, I really like having multiple TXT strings
> (length-prefixed) but then "the last one" should be "the rest of RDATA"
>
> Maybe Mark and others should think about how to do that encoding of the
> RDATA... I am lacking ideas here. Part from telling how many TXT strings
> there are.
>
>    paf

I don't really care about the encoding as long as it is *stable*.

The wire format has gone from a series of <len><value> pairs that
get concatenated for use (up to draft-faltstrom-uri-07) to just
<value> with a implict length (draft-faltstrom-uri-08).  The type
code was allocated against draft-faltstrom-uri-05.

Below are some of the tradeoffs that result from the different wire
encodings.

Master files need to preserve wire encoding (for DNSSEC) so
<len><value> pairs restrict how master files are written.  This
leads to lines which are potentially over a 1000 bytes long due to
\DDD encodings of non-ascii.

With a plain <value> and concatenation you don't have to have long
lines in master files and you can print the field out over multiple
lines knowing you can recombine the field.

example.net. 	URI ( 0 1 "http://foo.bar/"
		      "xxx?lhllshdflldhlh;"
		      "yyy?lhjjgjfkakfjkfjak" )

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]