julian at mehnle
Oct 31, 2006, 8:39 AM
Views: 2136
Permalink
|
|
Processing limits (was: DNSOP Agenda for San Diego (IETF 67))
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
> > Let's face it. Waiting for the type99 record was good, but also
> > allowing txt records (and worse: promoting to use TXT records) may have
> > been a mistake.
>
> I publish and check type99 records - and encourage others to do the same.
Same here.
> RFC lawyer question: 4408 says I SHOULD limit the size of DNS queries.
> Fine - I do that. But what should the result be when the size is
> exceeded? None? TempError?
You mean "limit the total amount of data obtained from the DNS queries",
not "limit the size of DNS queries", right?
The RFC itself is mute about how to react, so you can do whatever you want
and still be compliant. Speaking not as an RFC lawyer but as an
architect, I'd say TempError.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFR3w8wL7PKlBZWjsRArq7AJ9EaRjycpiQtzsjH7c/ZoIB4S0RGgCfcWJV
CzmM4sgU/xjQWQvyJKGpJdA=
=PqvY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss[at]v2.listbox.com
|
Processing limits (was: DNSOP Agenda for San Diego (IETF 67))
