> From: Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> > I disagree with the rationale for 13 name servers. > > The root (and .com) have that because it was what would fit into > packets > of a particular size given their naming scheme and that scheme's > efficient compressibility.
Yes, I know where the "13" came from. The BCP document should include what s currently required and used (at least on Root and TLDs). Then, at least "13" name servers should be allowed. > If there is to be a recommended limit, it should be specifically for > packet size reasons, and not just "because this is what the root > does". > > IIRC, Vixie et al wrote a draft on this, but it didn't reach RFC > status. > > Ah, there it is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-15.txt I know the draft. If we think about packet size based limit, even if TCP can handle 64k byte DNS data, I would like to set a limit based on the sizes of 512, 1232, and 1400 that can be handled by UDP without fragmentation. In the case of PQC, I would like to discuss the part excluding the huge DNSKEY and RRSIG. Regards, -- Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <fujiw...@jprs.co.jp> _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
