Jim Reid writes: > 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.
I agree with the approach of limiting discussion of limits to recommendations. I am not a fan of enforcing lower limits in the wire format of what the protocol allows. I realize the draft is not currently phrased in terms of enforcing new limits; I'm just staking my ground. Also, this draft uses BCP14 boilerplate but only a few instances of capitalized BCP14 terms; I see two SHOULDs and one MAY. (Perhaps I miscounted.) Presumably it needs more RECOMMENDEDs. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
