> - EDNS0 [RFC-2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 > octets. > > .. I'm operationally concerned about the last SHOULD. As far as I > know, EDNS0 is not really implemented. It does not seem to include a > SHOULD to something that hasn't seen practical, wide-spread > deployment > already. I'd recommend removing this or rewording it to a MAY. >
Is there a technical problem with EDSNO (e.g., broken, doesn't scale, too complex, etc.)? Or has it not been deployed because it hasn't been implemented. If it's the latter than making it a SHOULD be implemented would appear to be the right message.
Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
