On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:10:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 95 lines which said:
> Title : DNS Referral Response Size Issues > Author(s) : P. Vixie, A. Kato > Filename : draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-09.txt [Quite good, IMHO and clearly improved.] I'm still uneased about the notion of "silent truncation" (section 2.3). To me, what is described here (not sending part of the glue) is not truncation at all (a word which has a very specific meaning in the DNS). What is the opinion of the WG? Am I the only one complaining here? The abstract still mentions "zones wishing to expose a moderate or high number of authority servers (NS RRs)" probably because they are politically important (ICANN issues for the root and root-servers.net) and because they raise specific problems, such as glue management. But do we really want to limit this document to NS RRs? It seems to me that a part of the document is still worthy for other records, such as TXT. (Section 1 mentions the issue and refers to RFC 3226.) I would like to be sure that this "limitation" is indeed a deliberate decision. Editorial issues: Section 4, "one address records" should be "one address record" Section 8, "programing" should be "programming" _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
