Hi all,

thanks for answering my recent questions so far, but I have to bother you with another (maybe stupid?) issue.

I saw that for regular address queries, you moved the ANAME record from the "answer" section to the "additional" section in the -02 draft. I tried to figure out why, but did not find an answer in the document itself or in the github issues.

This might by a problem, at least theoretically. RFC 2181, section 9, says that records may be removed from the additional section without setting the TC bit if the message would get too large otherwise. So the ANAME record could get lost in some circumstances. I have not checked whether this could occur in real, with very long query names, a lot of address records, authority records and maybe with signatures (which would allow larger responses due to the DNSSEC requirements on the other hand).

Regards,

Klaus

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to