Dear Stephane, Thanks for your comments and apologize some delay of my response.
First of all, the editorial issues have been fixed. > 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? Are you just saying that a phrase "silent truncation" is inadequate? If it is, we need may try to replace it with another represtation. > 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. TXT records are usually included in the answer section only. Is there any exceptional case? If a TXT RRset is bigger than the available space, the TC bit set. So the situation is different from the referral case. -- Akira Kato _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
