In article <mailman.1317.1342033147.63724.bind-us...@lists.isc.org>, "Michael Hoskins (michoski)" <micho...@cisco.com> wrote:
> while it's largely personal preference -- i generally like to "be > conservative in what i send, and liberal in what i accept": > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle This doesn't refer to quantity, but to how strictly you should adhere to the specification. > it's not violating RFCs to send the full data so it's not technically > "wrong". however, if sending back too much data is known to cause > problems in some cases and can potentially be used against you...then it > seems wise to take the minimal path. As long as you stay under the traditional 500 byte limit, I think you're being conservative enough. "Liberal" would be depending on EDNS0 extensions. However, I think it's reasonable to adhere to the following policy: Caching nameserver: minimal-responses yes. The clients of these are primarily stub resolvers, which probably won't cache the additional data, so it's a waste of bandwidth and could potentially cause problems. Authoritative nameserver: minimal-responses no. The clients are almost all caching nameservers, and they'll cache what they can. -- Barry Margolin Arlington, MA _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
