From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: ENDS0 > As I mentioned in the DNSEXT meeting, 1024 is unacceptably low. > 1220-1240 is the number I'm thinking about. This is driven by DNSSEC > and the need to have multiple large signatures in certain high level > zones such as ".", "COM" etc. Since my proposal is that DNS resolvers SHOULD specify their buffer value (e.g. 2048), using the default size (1024, 1220-1240, or what ever) is a rare case. So, I'm not particular to 1024 and I agree with 1220-1240. --Kazu -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
