It appears that Paul Vixie <[email protected]> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- ><<Rather than writing a draft for each limitation, > >I think it would be better to compile them all into one draft.>>
I agree a draft describing the places where DNS evaluators should set limits would be a good idea. I am considerably less enthusastic about specific limits, since the use of the DNS has evolved a lot and some things that may bave seemed excessive back in the day are now routine. The obvious example is CNAME chains. In 1034/1035 the only use contemplated for CNAME was temporary forwarding when a host name changed, and for that use, chained CNAMEs made no sense. Now they delegate authority to different points of control in many different ways. For applications like CDNs, you need two or three link CNAME chains and nobody appears to find that a problem. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
