|
|
|
@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ But in UTC the second sometimes might be `60` to handle leap seconds; |
|
|
|
these value can't be represented in POSIX time (seconds since epoch |
|
|
|
*without* leap seconds), so the `YYYYMMDDHHmmSS` simply isn't exact UTC. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## RFC 6895 |
|
|
|
## RFC 6895 - TYPE and CLASS 255, ALL/ANY and * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Section 3.1](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6895#section-3.1) says: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ mnemonic for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See also: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsext/kKBfBhQIJmRDQ-xb_iJD-A4EeZE) |
|
|
|
- [Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsext/kKBfBhQIJmRDQ-xb_iJD-A4EeZE) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Proposal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -100,4 +100,4 @@ interpreted as TYPE 255. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See also: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- [dnsext] rfc6195bis draft : thoughts on CLASS sub-registry (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsext/fA086yr5V3QrVkmxF7HcuBIX92A) |
|
|
|
- [[dnsext] rfc6195bis draft : thoughts on CLASS sub-registry](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsext/fA086yr5V3QrVkmxF7HcuBIX92A) |
|
|
|
|
Stefan Bühler
2 years ago