[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: [dns-wg] IPv6 in .ie

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:38:20 +0100
Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

> >>>>> "Bill" == bmanning  <bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com> writes:
> 
>     Daniel> the names in their glue to save space.
>     >>  Yeah. Somebody needs to write up a draft on this as a BCP:
>     >> using efficient label compression to avoid truncated responses.
> 
>     Bill> 	you mean the resp-size draft that is already out there
>     Bill> is not good enough?



> I thought that had died.....

For your information and reference:
resp-size is at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-01.txt

A common parent name is recommended in the resp-size draft:

   4.1. The current practice of giving all nameserver names a common parent
   (such as GTLD-SERVERS.NET or ROOT-SERVERS.NET) saves space in DNS
   responses and allows for more nameservers to be enumerated than would
   otherwise be possible.  (Note that in this case it is wise to serve the
   common parent domain's zone from the same servers that are named within
   it, in order to limit external dependencies when all your eggs are in a
   single basket.)



The document is not dead, it came up in the DNSOP meeting at IETF60 in San Diego.
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/msg03041.html
Rob Austein:    Paul, want to say anything about respsize doc?

Paul Vixie:     I know that one person actually read this and found
                clownish commentary I put in draft. Nobody flamed me.
                There is a very controversial comment in this draft. 

Peter Koch:     Have one question or remark. We had funny discussion
                about what is allowed length for domain name. 255,
                256, 253. It'. a bit late now to discuss this
                because this is very basic DNS stuff. Nothing to do
                with your draft, but obviously some basic questions
                yet unresolved. Anything we can do in this or another
                WG to resolve this? 

(Peters question sidetracked the discussion somewhat ... I skip that here... )


Paul Vixie:     In terms of process, I do not think this draft is
                ready to progress, because no-one complained. So until
                I have some feeling that someone other than me has
                seen this text, I will say it's not ready to go
                forward. 
 
Rob Austein:    So given that we had a number of people claiming this
                was important work, suggests that there is some work
                to be done in terms of reading doc that hasn't
                happened yet. You're all slackers. Go read the document!

-- 

---------------------------------| Olaf M. Kolkman
---------------------------------| RIPE NCC