Editors question: Removal of SIG RR Presentation format TTL optimisation

[Roy Arends <roy@logmess.com>]

Q: Should the optimization of omitting the original TTL from the
   master file format representation of the SIG RR be removed from the
   specification ?

Some background:

RFC 2535 says:

7.2. Presentation of SIG RRs

   If the original TTL, which applies to the type signed, is the same as
   the TTL of the SIG RR itself, it may be omitted. The date field which
   follows it is larger than the maximum possible TTL so there is no
   ambiguity.

Input for discussion:

"Master file format" is a presentation format defined in RFC 1035 section
5, and is part of the base DNS specification.  The DNSSEC documents define
presentation formats for the DNSSEC RR types, and it seems likely that
DNSSEC-aware implementations will include at least one program which
will parse this presentation format.

The optimization of the original TTL field results in a relatively minor
saving in the presentation of what is usually a fairly large RR, and
allowing the optimization increases the complexity of any code that must
parse this RR format.

Should the original TTL field remain optional, or should the revised specs
make it mandatory?

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>