Moin! On 28 Jul 2021, at 16:13, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2021, at 08:22, Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote: >> >> I tend to agree with this. >> >> There are a lot of ways a delegation can be non-functional (for example the >> circle of dependencies can be as big as you like, can incorporate third >> cousin twice removed glue, etc) and it makes more sense to me to let all of >> these cases fail rather than incurring the cost of papering over just some >> of them in the authority server. > > Do you want dns servers to spend extra CPU power to lookup whether this is a > “non-functional” glue case instead of spending less CPU just looking if it > has a glue record and adding it? Well that is a tradeoff an implementer has to make and not something we should define in an RFC. > If the latter, should it do this extra work of things don’t fit to determine > the usefulness of TC=1 for this to set it depending those circumstances or > just set TC=1 based on size ? Again if the packet I as the authoritative server want to deliver does not fit I SHOULD/MUST set TC=1. However if I can and am willing to omit optional sibling glue to make it fit that is fine also. There is authoritative software out there that has a minimize-responses setting to allow the operator to define that behaviour. So long -Ralf ——- Ralf Weber _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
