IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 06 March 2012 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C2721F85E1 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 09:39:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.42
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.179, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SUKe7aFfifB1 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 09:39:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6BA21F85D0 for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 09:39:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:41904) by ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1S4yMN-0006Xo-X6 (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:39:39 +0000
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1S4yMN-0000lR-7A (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:39:39 +0000
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:39:39 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: ned+ima@mrochek.com
In-Reply-To: <01OCQDKVL2ZQ00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1203061733420.2756@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <79CB91401EEC406EB118EC9A017905BF@LENOVO47E041CF> <01OCQDKVL2ZQ00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:39:46 -0000

ned+ima@mrochek.com <ned+ima@mrochek.com> wrote:
>
> And if you stick with the intersection approach, I don't think a list of domain
> names packed into a single string is the way to do it. Multiple records
> containing name fields fields are a better bet because they support
> compression, and compression can make a big difference when there's lots of
> repetition in the names, as seems likely. (I note in passing that you get this
> for free with SRV.)

While I very much agree with this, compression is not the reason: only RR
types mentioned in RFC 1035 are subject to compression, and that doesn't
include SRV. See RFC 3597 "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR)
Types".

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Trafalgar: North 5 or 6. Moderate or rough. Fair. Moderate or good.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email