> On Thu, 3 Oct 2013, Dickson, Brian wrote: > >>> This allows children to present DS to those parents who want DS, and > >>> DNSKEY to those who would prefer to calculate DS on their children's > >>> behalf. > >> > >> I still strongly prefer CDS (and CDNSKEY) to keep the record formats > >> identical, making things a lot easier on implementors and humans editing > >> zone files. I see no strong reason to merge these two things into one > >> RRTYPE of CTA. > >> > > > > There is the issue of "big zone operators would need to do twice as many > > queries".
> Why? The big zone operators only need to support one type - the type > that matches their policy. If they need a DNSKEY, they look for CDNSKEY. > If they need a DS, they look for CDS. > > What if someone puts both types in their zone? > Ignore both? Maybe the parent zone needs a policy to always choose one and only one kind of RR (either CDS or CDNSKEY) and omit the other in this situation. > Paul > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop Guangqing Deng cnnic
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
