Re: [dhcwg] RFC 4704 DHCPv6 FQDN Option 39

[Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon at nominum.com>]

On Mar 26, 2008, at 11:18 PM, Govind Saoji wrote:
> It would be great if anyone can help in understanding reasoning
> behind this decision. Also, I am sceptical about DNS compatibility
> if we follow different formats in case of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6. Any
> thoughts?

The spec is as written, so unless it's really badly broken, you're
stuck with it.   And I don't think it's broken at all, actually.

DNS wire format is the correct format for domain names encapsulated in
DHCP messages because there is no possibility of information loss.
Presentation format (a text string) is appropriate for displaying
domain names for humans to read.   However, the translation between
DNS presentation format and wire format is beyond the scope of the DHC
working group to specify, so it's really better for us to just specify
the wire format, which is documented in an RFC to which we can refer.

In practice, translating between wire-format and presentation format
is about 50 lines of code, so there's really no significant space or
time overhead.

Also, please bear in mind the line that you did *not* quote from  
RFC3315, which says that label compression is not permitted.   This  
substantially simplifies translating to DNS wire format; if you were  
to fail to notice this restriction, I could see where you might  
consider implementing the wire format conversion to be too much.


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg