Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long

[Yann Ylavic]

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> So can I assume that a backport req to bump-up the field sizes to, at least,
> what is in trunk, would not be vetoed?

Not by me, +1.