On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 12:39 +1100, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Out of the secdir review (thanks again Alan!), I realized that the
> draft never actually said this:
>
>PMTU governs the size of UDP datagrams, which limits the size of
> records, but
>does not prevent records from being smaller.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018, Shumon Huque wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Shumon Huque wrote:
Okay, got it. For people that have already implemented this, I think
there has been an implicit understanding that the format of
On Feb 25, 2018, at 8:39 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> Out of the secdir review (thanks again Alan!), I realized that the
> draft never actually said this:
>
> PMTU governs the size of UDP datagrams, which limits the size of records,
> but
> does not prevent records from being smaller. An
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Alan DeKok
wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2018, at 8:39 PM, Martin Thomson
> wrote:
> >
> > Out of the secdir review (thanks again Alan!), I realized that the
> > draft never actually said this:
> >
> > PMTU governs the size of UDP datagrams, which limits the size of
> re
> On Feb 26, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> So it was decided to not use a full DNS packet format? And then since you
> miss the structure of the Answer Section and Additional/Authority
> Section, you require the "answer RR's" come first where you basically
> emulate an Answer Sectio
