On Thu, 2025-06-26 at 14:34 +0200, Petr Špaček wrote: > That means the proposed protocol would depend on non-minimal authority > sections. I thought the trend nowadays is the opposite, i.e. providing > more and more minimal answers.
Indeed! Condition 1 in 4.1 seems hard to hit, in current operational reality. > Perhaps a solution could be inverting the EDNS logic in the draft: > Add an option to _request_ this extra data, so we don't have to enable > non-minimal answers on all servers for this? While reading the draft, this exact idea occurred to me as well. We do need to then remember that there's an EDNS option that can cause big responses. Kind regards, -- Peter van Dijk PowerDNS.com B.V. - https://www.powerdns.com/ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
