IETF-SSH archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: draft-ietf-secsh-dns-04 comments
On Mon, 12 May 2003, Jakob Schlyter wrote:
> thanks, I've integrated your changes. since this is only editoral changes,
> I assume we do not need another last call.
Oh, that's why I got around to see the draft. Yes, I agree this doesn't
necessitate another IETF LC.
> > (looking back, you could also add a reference to RFC2434 in the IANA
> > considerations section)
>
> why?
To get a reference to what "IETF Consensus" by the definition of RFC2434
means.
> > @@ -234,7 +234,9 @@
> > / fingerprint /
> > / /
> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > -
> > +==> please use the more common textual representation, seems much more
> > +natural
> > +==> the picture is 74 chars wide --- not good!
>
> textual representation? please elaborate.
please look at e.g. RFC2460 and many other RFC's on how they have
represented it there:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Source Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Destination Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
.. this is the de-facto way of representing bits, I think -- and should be
used.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index |
Old Index