On Jan 4, 2015, at 12:13 PM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: >>> "Sending the full qname to the authoritative name server is a >>> tradition, not a protocol requirment." >>> >>> I'd actually call it an optimization, not a tradition. >> >> In many cases, sending the full qname degrades performance so I would >> not call it an optimization. > > If there are cases in which sending the full QNAME degrades performance, it > might be useful to document them in the draft (off the top of my head, I > can't imagine non-broken cases where that would be true, but I haven't > thought about it too long). > > The reason I'd call it an optimization is that in the case where a server is > authoritative for multiple layers of hierarchy, sending the full QNAME allows > that server to bypass the referrals for all intermediate layers of hierarchy > and simply respond to the depth it knows. If QNAME minimization is applied, > that shortcut isn't possible.
+1 to David's comment. I have always heard that sending the full name was an optimization for authoritative severs that spanned more than one level, and that such servers were common in "the early days". It is worth pointing this out in this draft, and to also say that that situation may be much less common now than it was in antiquity. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
