In your previous mail you wrote: > > - 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. => I simply disagree with the "as far as I know, EDNS0 is not really implemented". IMHO this is not true and not only in DNSSEC testbeds where EDNS0 is really needed.
Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
