-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 07:52, Guy Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 10:29:42AM +1100, Brad Hards wrote:
> > 3. PTR records are used a lot, and I noted a redundant "ptr" label that
> > looked ugly and didn't provide any extra information.
>
> Why is that different from the "addr" label in the summary line for A
> records? Presumably that's redundant as well, as A records have only an
> address in them, just as PTR records have only a name in them. Perhaps
> other record types that have only one item should be cleaned up as well.
Err, because I stared at lots of PTR records, and not many A records? There is
a subtle difference, because addr is a bit clearer than A, but ptr isn't much
different to PTR, assuming that you don't know DNS by heart.
Also, a subtle bit of semantics. Traditionally PTR records are used for
mapping IP to Name (the reverse name lookup). However DNS service discovery
uses PTR records as a general mapping from one part of the address space to
another. So the Question in a PTR query might not be 4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa. It
might be _ichat._tcp.local.
> > Can someone have a look at this, and commit it if OK?
>
> Done.
Thanks.
> > Future: LLMNR and DNS are probably going to diverge a bit. It may be
> > useful to split the DNS code into two dissectors, sharing some common
> > code.
>
> Probably a good idea. Note that NBNS and DNS share some common code as
> well, given that NBNS was DNS-influenced but isn't the same as DNS.
This is the fundamental point - multicast DNS isn't DNS.
Brad
- --
http://linux.conf.au. 22-25Jan2003. Perth, Aust. I'm registered. Are you?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE96nbhW6pHgIdAuOMRAlOGAKCSD24rKqZDrDj0mwaI19P71KZZFwCdFVoh
EhkeGPrPCW6hISCY7cQdzdo=
=uwig
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
