Re: more on binary labels and longest match

[Paul Vixie <paul@VIX.COM>]

Jerry Scharf <scharf@vix.com> writes:

> As for the longest match, there is now no difference between what Paul had
> in mind for edns and what Matt has in his draft, so we see no reason for
> duplicating this. What Paul has yet to write up is that the OPT have a LM
> (longest match) bit, so that is can be optionally used with any DNS
> name. This also means that you can turn off longest match on binary labels
> should you want to.

It also means it should be documented as off by default, even for binary
labels.  And I guess that means I have to explain longest-match in EDNS,
as the LM flag, much as I'd rather have done it separately.  (I actually
had this in an early unreleased draft of EDNS but I took it out, so I'll
just go get it from RCS.)

> Pending the list's discussion of the LM in edns, we would like Matt to pull 
> that from his draft then see it move forward with all speed.

It may be a little bit difficult for Matt to explain why binary labels are
useful unless he can make reference to the LM bit and the behaviour of QUERY
in the presence of that bit.  Therefore I recommend that he do that if nec'y.
-- 
Paul Vixie
La Honda, CA
<paul@vix.com>			"Many NANOG members have been around
pacbell!vixie!paul		 longer than most." --Jim Fleming