draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-15.txt says: > Note that truncation of the additional data section might not be > signaled via the TC bit since additional data is often optional
Using the word "truncation" here is dangerous. By definition, there is truncation only when the TC bit is set. "Optimizing" the answer by dropping non-necessary RRsets is *not* truncation. To quote RFC 2181, "The TC bit should not be set merely because some extra information could have been included, but there was insufficient room." > will automatically requery for RRSets that are possibly truncated I don't think that a RRset can be "possibly truncated". Either it is truncated (not sent in its entirety) and the TC bit is set, the resolver does not have to guess, or it is not truncated. There is never an ambiguity. (Unless you use "truncation" in the sloppy sense I criticized above.) Editorial : > RRSets are are never sent partially One are too many :-) _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
