Wouter Wijngaards wrote:

> Issue [4.9]:
> For old versions of servers only uncompressed is possible. New
> version can still choose to use compressed or not.
> Clarify on compression proposal: Senders SHOULD NOT compress RDATA,
> receivers MUST be able to decompress, when the new version has been
> negotiated with the EDNS bits.


For this we'd need a more detailed problem statement. Having a compression
pointer in the RDATA is most likely not very attractive, unless we'd find
'sibling' DNAMEs in long/deep names a lot:

some.maybe.really.deep.example. DNAME other.maybe.really.deep.example.

If this were the case, it could be dealt with by local compression ;-)
The DNAME RDATA is probably more attractive as a compression target,
since an RRSet will follow with an owner that is a descendant of the DNAME's
target. Still I'm not sure it's worth the hassle of deploying yet another
hop-by-hop negotiation scheme. I'd suggest we stick with what RFC 3597
gave us: DNAME RDATA MUST NOT be compressed.

-Peter

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: