On Friday, November 06, 2015 01:05:00 PM Bob Harold wrote: > I thought of suggesting that "clients SHOULD accept answers in any order". > But on second thought, this increases code complexity, for no real > benefit. And we will probably see more low-compute-power devices doing > some basic DNS lookups that need to keep code to a minimum.
i agree with this conclusion but not with your reasons as stated. as marka pointed out up-thread, RFC 1035 already describes answer construction in a certain order, and in that sense, the jabley--ordered-answers draft is merely a clarification in case anyone misunderstood 1035's ordering implications. however, low-compute-power devices in 2015 already have 10X the computing power of the VAX 8350 i ran all of DEC.COM's e-mail through (for ~130K employees) in 1989. we don't have to worry about their computational burden now, and that trend will accelerate. which is a good thing, because DNSSEC must become ubiquitous, all the way to the edge. -- P. Vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
