Question about the ADDITIONAL SECTION

[Dan Murphy]

Barry Margolin wrote:
> 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?
>   
Yes, performance.