Re: [dnsext] compression in UPDATE

Edward Lewis <> Mon, 09 May 2011 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0435E0967 for <>; Mon, 9 May 2011 13:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.483
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3zRkamf+Loio for <>; Mon, 9 May 2011 13:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF80E0960 for <>; Mon, 9 May 2011 13:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Work-Laptop-2.local ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p49K4C7a074501; Mon, 9 May 2011 16:04:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from
Received: from [] by Work-Laptop-2.local (PGP Universal service); Mon, 09 May 2011 16:04:13 -0400
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Work-Laptop-2.local on Mon, 09 May 2011 16:04:13 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a06240800c9edf6fcfbcb@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 16:03:59 -0400
To: Paul Vixie <>
From: Edward Lewis <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on
Subject: Re: [dnsext] compression in UPDATE
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 20:58:26 -0000

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 +1-571-434-5468

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