[dns-wg] Re: [db-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute

Jeroen Massar wrote:

> Compressed/uncompressed is a representation method, the parser which
> reads/exports into/from the database should not give anything about the
> external representation and can represent it differently internally.
> If you would argue for uncompressed being easier to parse by a program,
> then one should maybe better propose to store it completely in binary,
> hashtrees etc come to mind ;) Programs should use the OS provided,
> getaddrinfo() and inet_ntop() functions, these afaik on all platforms
> support any input format and print out usually compressed formats.

Assuming all elements of your argument above are correct, I believe that
this supports my suggestion. If you can deal with the addresses
programatically regardless of the storage method, this is an argument (in my
mind/experience) for storing them in a consistent, lowest common denominator
format (read, human-parsable), such as the full, uncompressed form.

> One thing there though, if you query the RIPE database, which I tend to
> do a lot, inet6num's are always different, even when created by the NCC,
> the format is sort of the same, but the contents are wildly variating,
> sometimes in compressed format, otherwise not, sometimes caps, sometimes
> not. It would be great to have a single format coming out of whois, if
> that would only help hurt the eyes a bit.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of problem I'd like to see avoided, given that
this part of the db must be rewritten anyway.

> Thus my 'vote': represent with compressed lowercase.
> But I could live with uncompressed too, as long as it would be done then
> also everywhere in a consistent fashion.

On that we are in complete agreement.

Regards,

Doug

-- 

	If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough