> On 10 Jul 2024, at 14:27, Philip Homburg <pch-dnso...@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote: > > So the question becomes, do we want some limits in an RFC that everybody > agrees on or do we want to keep the current informal system where limits > are not fixed and people can get unlucky if they exceed limits they didn't > know exist.
I’d prefer somewhere in between. Nailing down fixed limits could be tricky because there are too many moving parts: transport, DNSSEC flavours, Do[TQH], what (not) to drop from the Additional Section, etc). And those limits may change as the DNS and/or the Internet evolves. The current informal arrangements may well be too loose. The info isn’t in one place, making it hard for DNS operators. IMO documenting the trade-offs in response sizes could be a better option. ie if the response > X, it breaks foo; if it’s > Y it breaks bar. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
