> From: Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat=2Bietf=40nic...@dmarc.ietf.org> >> Use 'minimal-responses' configuration:
> Nit: this formulation makes me wonder what this recommends for SVCB-like > records. Strictly taken I'd say it clashes with some SHOULDs from the > soon-to-be RFC. Either way, SVCB-like queries could be prone to generating > large answers (if this SHOULD is followed). Thanks. I agree. I think we need minimal-responses draft. It may differ between authoritative servers and full-service resolvers. also need to consider MX, CNAME, SVC, NAPTR, ... RRs. And "Appendix C. Minimal-responses" mentions glue, it might be better to remove the appendix or refer to glue-is-not-optional draft. -- Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <fujiw...@jprs.co.jp> _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
