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
