Re: nsec++

[Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>]

> ...
> I think we don't want to make the NSEC more difficult than it already is
> (compared to the NXT definition). 
> 
> So I would vote to keep the current NSEC definition as it as and get
> used to the fact is takes up a few more bytes,

it's all just fun and games until microsoft decides to sign zones containing
their private-allocation types (in the 65000 range.)

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>