[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



--On Wednesday, March 19, 2003 23:45:05 -0500 David Blacka
<davidb@verisignlabs.com> wrote:

> 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.

This was also the conclusion arrived at during smalltalk during the
pre-IETF DNSSEC workshop. 

I am a strong supporter of the policy of including KEY records as
early/often as possible. Minimising number of RTT iterations is a major
speed hack, in my humble opinion. 

-- 
Måns Nilsson            Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204         KTHNOC  MN1334-RIPE

We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.

Attachment: pgp00005.pgp
Description: PGP signature