Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-02.txt

[Ralf Weber <[e-mail]>]

Moin!

On 28 Jul 2021, at 16:13, Paul Wouters wrote:

> On Jul 28, 2021, at 08:22, Joe Abley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> I tend to agree with this.
>>
>> There are a lot of ways a delegation can be non-functional (for example the circle of dependencies can be as big as you like, can incorporate third cousin twice removed glue, etc) and it makes more sense to me to let all of these cases fail rather than incurring the cost of papering over just some of them in the authority server.
>
> Do you want dns servers to spend extra CPU power to lookup whether this is a “non-functional” glue case instead of spending less CPU just looking if it has a glue record and adding it?
Well that is a tradeoff an implementer has to make and not something we should define in an RFC.

> If the latter, should it do this extra work of things don’t fit to determine the usefulness of TC=1 for this to set it depending those circumstances or just set TC=1 based on size ?
Again if the packet I as the authoritative server want to deliver does not fit I SHOULD/MUST set TC=1. However if I can and am willing to omit optional sibling glue to make it fit that is fine also. There is authoritative software out there that has a minimize-responses setting to allow the operator to define that behaviour.

So long
-Ralf
——-
Ralf Weber