Roy Arends <[email protected]> writes: > As a sidenote, this document may benefit from an operational > cost/benefit section, compared to plain old DNS resolution.
That's a good point, thanks. I was trying to stay away from "too much detail" but I forgot my audience :-P > For instance, Qname-minimisation may lead to additional queries and > thus latency [...] > Encrypted and Authenticated may lead to more traffic due to session > setup and breakdown, and thus latency. That's fair, as latency is actually "negative" when qname-min is compared to normal DNS. I don't have a category for "worse" yet. > LocalRoot needs scaling and provisioning in different ways than RSS > scaling. Yes, and that's a bit harder to capture and likely agree upon. My experience of running the localroot.isi.edu service shows that it's not hard to get working (as no one has said "it didn't work for me"). But I'm not sure we'll all agree on the right balance there. Anything that requires more configuration *is* harder, but it's unclear whether it actually means it's actually also easier because it works better since you're never disconnected from the data. -- Wes Hardaker Google _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
