-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 01:44, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
> In DNS, some flags are omitted. I tend to believe this causes some
> inaccuracies in the parsing of the flags.
> See atfached.
> 1. The AA flag is missing from a query (which is theoretically fine).
> 2. The location of the AA flag - just over where the Z flag bits are.
>
> Similiar issues are in the response.
> The Z flag is not shown it all. I think it should be, even (and actually
> because) it has to be 0!
>
> In general, I think we should show even fields that have to be 0 (or any
> fixed value) - even if just to verify they are!
I'm not sure I understand what you think ethereal should show. If I can
understand, I think I can create a patch, and then we can discuss it better.
Lets deal with AA flag first. It would be no problem to show the value of the
bit, but what should it be annotated to say in a query? What would you like
the text to show if it is a zero? And if it is a one?
Now lets do Z. Are we talking about the version in RFC1035 or the version in
RFC2535? I assume the latter, although you refer to "flag bits", while there
is only one Z bit in RFC2535. What would the annotation show in a query for
each of one and zero?
And for a response containing a one or a zero?
You haven't requested RA in a query. Why do you think AA should be shown and
not RA?
This is not to say that a patch that implemented these changes would be
accepted anyway. It would be interesting to get a ruling from the Ethereal
demigods on policy for display of reserved and undefined message elements.
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
iD8DBQE+HpSHW6pHgIdAuOMRAm+2AJ4i5HNJBEH9ndPQxE9Y82kLy93y0gCgqRs2
HzWYWTb0OQcjBSkLSENwkGY=
=erp0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
