Re: Q1 followup - arguements against "MUST NOT" language

[Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>]

Also, what do you mean by "use" ;)

I'm leaning towards "MUST NOT compress domain names in the RDATA 
sections when assembling and transmitting a message."  (Includes 
dynamic update request messages when using this wording.)

1) Bytes compressed away in a SIG message are miniscule compared to 
the signature.

2) A response won't have many NXT's anyway (unlike NS records which 
may be numerous in a referral).

3) Assuming EDNS0 is going to enlarge the minimum maximum message 
size from 512, what's a few extra bytes.


At 13:40 -0500 2/12/03, Scott Rose wrote:
> The general consensus is that name compression in RDATA is A Bad Thing (tm),
> but there are some differences on the wording for the spec:
>
> Sub-Question:  What are the arguments against using the terms (1)"MUST NOT
> use name compression on DNS names in the RDATA on sending over the wire"
> (paraphrasing here) over (2)"SHOULD NOT use name compression on DNS names in
> the RDATA..."?
>
> Notes:
>     A.  (1) is the strength of the wording used in the unknown-rrs draft.
> There would be consistency.
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/>
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer


--
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/>