Subject: Re: NXT design choices

From: Alex Bligh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:03:20 +0100

--On 03 August 2004 10:40 -0700 Edward Lewis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Choice 2b2 has been discarded because the community was happy with the
> costs of choice 2b1 - not because choice 2b1 was optimal.

I agree

> I personally don't think it's a matter of how important or why zone
> enumeration is a problem/distasteful.  Zone enumeration is not and has
> never been a desired feature of DNSSEC.  It was ignorable by the original
> designers, so it persists.  Looking back - a big cost is the sorting of
> the data in the authoritative server.  "We've" "paid" that by developing
> BIND 9.  (Is BIND 9's perceived slowness a result of storing data in
> sorted order?)

Interesting: Given Ben has done some work (no idea how far he has got) on
proof-of-concept NSEC2 in Bind, do we have real-world code that would tell
us what the cost 2b2 over 2b1 is? (albeit non-optimized, and on one
platform)?

Alex

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 03:12:15 +0100

Alex Bligh wrote:
> Interesting: Given Ben has done some work (no idea how far he has got)

"about half-way" - I can generate and sign the zone. I do not currently 
have a working resolver or responder.

> on