On Feb 21, 2019, at 2:24 PM, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > Implementation details are beyond the scope of RFCs.
Indeed they are. My point is that if you want to be careful of memory usage or disk usage, you can be—there is no need to use a hash. In essence, requiring us to use a hash is specifying an implementation detail that needn’t be specified: you can in fact implement this using a hash, although I wouldn’t. It would be nice if I were not required to implement it that way, since I think that’s not actually going to work reliably. > Also you mentioned caches which basically will never see these records unless > they are queried for. I mentioned caches because they are by far the biggest consumers of resources—authoritative name servers have much smaller memory footprints. I assume the reason you think using hashes is a good idea and not a premature optimization is because you’ve done a lot of work with caching name servers, and are seeing this discussion through that lens. That’s the wrong lens to be seeing it through. This is only relevant for authoritative name servers, and in that case, storing the whole RR-to-be-deleted is fine.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
