Re: Q-03: inclusion of KEY records in additional records section

[David Blacka <davidb@verisignlabs.com>]

On Wednesday 12 February 2003 07:39 pm, David Blacka wrote:

> It seems to me that with DS, this rule should be changed somehow.  We can 
> either eliminate it or strengthen it.  By "strengthen", I mean make it 
> return the zone KEY rrset in referral cases as well.
> 
> Eliminating the rule (never returning KEY rrsets in the additional 
section) 
> optimizes for code complexity and message size at the expense of round 
> trips.
> 
> Strengthing the rule does the opposite: optimizes for round trips at the 
> expense of code complexity and message size.
> 
> I'm not sure which is right.  At the moment I would probably vote to 
> eliminate the rule.  Smaller messages and more predicable client behavior 
> seems better than fewer round trips at the moment.

I've changed my mind.  I now think that servers SHOULD attempt to send the 
KEY RRs in the additional section.  That is, I think that we should 
strengthen the rule rather than eliminate it.  My reasoning is that:

  * the code complexity of doing this is pretty minor,
  * optimizing for fewer round trips makes sense: bandwidth will increase 
over time, but we cannot exceed the speed of light,
  * since the client (via EDNS0) controls the max size of the response and 
the key RRs can be silently truncated, the extra size of the message should 
do no harm.

-- 
David Blacka    <davidb@verisignlabs.com> 
Sr. Engineer    Verisign Applied Research


--
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/>