Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-hall-qtype-addr-00.txt]

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:04:19 -0500

on 8/13/2002 11:44 AM Paul Vixie wrote:

> when rfc1886 was proposed, several of us strongly recommended that "A"
> RR's be included as additional data when a "AAAA" query was answered.
> in the same way and for the same reason as we include "A"'s in the
> additional data section when answering "MX" or "NS" queries.
>
> we were shot down.  the reason given was "this is only useful during
> the transition period to V6, after which it's wasted complexity and
> wasted bandwidth."

I would agree with that assessment. The argument doesn't apply when it has
been explicitly requested, however.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

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

---

From: Greg Hudson <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 Aug 2002 19:26:43 -0400

On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 12:44, Paul Vixie wrote:
> we were shot down.  the reason given was "this is only useful during the
> transition period to V6, after which it's wasted complexity and wasted
> bandwidth."

That's pretty funny.  God forbid that we should write code which will
only be useful for two or three decades.

(Wasted bandwidth?  It's only wasted bandwidth if there are A records to
return, right?)