Question about the ADDITIONAL SECTION

[Barry Margolin]

In article <f5cusf$b9c$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
 Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews at isc.org> wrote:
> 	The key word above was "referral".  They are not returning
> 	referrals so there is no RFC requirement to return anything
> 	in the additional section.

I think the OP is claiming that including the additional section is a 
best practice, not necessarily a requirement.  Is there a good excuse 
why someone might disable this, as they apparently do?

$ dig zoneedit.com ns @ns8.zoneedit.com +norec

; <<>> DiG 9.3.4 <<>> zoneedit.com ns @ns8.zoneedit.com +norec
; (1 server found)
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 34311
;; flags: qr aa; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 5, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;zoneedit.com.       IN NS

;; ANSWER SECTION:
zoneedit.com.     1200  IN NS ns4.zoneedit.com.
zoneedit.com.     1200  IN NS ns8.zoneedit.com.
zoneedit.com.     1200  IN NS ns2.zoneedit.com.
zoneedit.com.     1200  IN NS t2.zoneedit.com.
zoneedit.com.     1200  IN NS ns3.zoneedit.com.

;; Query time: 100 msec
;; SERVER: 206.55.124.4#53(206.55.124.4)
;; WHEN: Thu Jun 21 22:16:00 2007
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 119

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***