Re: [dnsext] compression in UPDATE

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

At 18:57 +0000 5/9/11, Paul Vixie wrote:

>so i see.  ouch.  in fact the bind8 version of this goes well beyond
>RFC 3597's constraints on "known types".  i suggest that we draw a new
>line in the sand and require that compression be understood for all
>types that any now-current implementation is known to compress for.

I'd go the other way.  There's little harm in never compressing an 
outgoing message (the loss is that extra octets are moved).  There's 
more harm in compressing a type the receiver doesn't know, especially 
because the receiver wouldn't know that there was compression in use. 
(Compression isn't transitive, message to message, that is.)

Having been involved in a few "clarification" documents I'm not all 
that eager to see any more lines in the sand redrawn. ;)  It's never 
pain-free.  Recently I privately offered to write a document to cover 
over all the dead types and got no statements of support.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at [phone]

Now, don't say I'm always complaining.
Wait, that's a complaint, isn't it?