[bind10-dev] DNS message API: the message class

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉]

At Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:45:22 +0200,
Jelte Jansen <jelte at isc.org> wrote:

> >> My personal feeling is that RRDATA instead of RDATA would convey the
> >> contents better, in this approach, since we're talking about all the
> >> data of the rrs. But loud screaming of 'for the love of <my deity>,
> >> NO', or other suggestions are welcome
> > 
> > Hmm...I personally don't have a strong preference (I just followed the
> > naming convention of BIND9 and dnspython), but "RDATA" is the standard
> > technical term defined in RFC1035 so it sounds reasonable to me.
> 
> Well if I'm the only one who thinks of 1 specific rdata field when seeing the
> name 'rdata' i'll shut up now :)

Okay, we don't have to fix it now, but I'll keep the term RDATA at the
moment.  If others have preference/suggestions I'd love to here them.

> > As for RdataClass and RdataType, on the other hand, RRClass and RRType
> > are probably better because class/type are attributes (fields) of an
> > RR, not of an RDATA.  Do you feel more comfortable with RRClass and
> > RRType, or would you seek something even better?
> 
> yes.

Okay, thanks (I assume this yes means you're comfortable with
RRClass/RRType).

---
JINMEI, Tatuya