Subject: handling of additional data [Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-06.txt] (fwd)

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:36:31 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

DNSOP WGLC on draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-06.txt is ending in a
day or two, and I hope to be able to submit the revision then.

With my draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues editor hat on, I haven't seen
much convergence on this issue (and this isn't a show-stopper for this
document), so unless there are specific suggestions for changing the
section 4.4 of the document, I'll only try to clarify the terminology
a bit.

See:

http://www.netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/temp/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-07pre.txt
http://www.netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/temp/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-07pre-diff.html

Suggestions, etc. of course welcome..

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 12:24:15 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: handling of additional data [Re: [dnsop] WGLC for
    draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-06.txt]

Hi,

Let's take an issue separately from the rest.  Me and Jinmei discussed
this, but were OK with as it is.  However, if WG has clear opinions,
now might be time for modifying the text and/or recommiding changes to
the additional data processing.

As described by ipv6-dns-issues, section 4.4, there are two kinds of 
additional data:

   1.  "critical" additional data; this must be included (all the
       possible RRsets) in all scenarios, and
                                                                                             
   2.  "courtesy" additional data; this could be sent in full, with only
       a few RRsets, or with no RRsets, and can be fetched separately as
       well, but which could lead to non-optimal results.

[[ see examples of each in the draft.]]

Imagine the event where the additional data section would include both
A and AAAA RRsets and would be too large, but omitting one RRset would 
make it small enough.

Now, the questions are:

A)  Is there consensus that it's better to set TC bit than to return 
    only some RRsets of critical additional data?

B)  Is it better to omit all the courtesy addional data, rather than 
    omit some RRsets?

C)  (This is relevant if you answered "no" to B) Is it better to set
    TC bit rather than return only some RRsets with courtesy 
    additional data?

Opinions?  Discussion? Etc.?

As for my personal preference:
 A) probably yes (not sure).
 B) yes, omit everything.
 C) possibly yes, not sure. (Doesn't matter if "yes" to B)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html