Re: [dnsext] compression in UPDATE

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

> Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 16:03:59 -0400
> From: Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>
> 
> >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.)

i agree, and that was my first inclination also, but i hate breaking the
installed base just for the sake of purity.  nsupdate is a huge contributor
to the world's supply of UPDATE messages and i am loathe to declare it
broken.