Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat+i...@nic.cz> writes: > I'm convinced that 150 was just a quick stop-gap compromise and that > from the start vendors expected that dnsop might set it lower later. > Therefore I don't think this *argument* for keeping 150 is really > valid.
Thanks; as I said in the original, I think we need to hear from most implementations in order to publish as an RFC. So... > As for Knot Resolver, I see no problem in setting the hard limit > lower, especially if that gets published in this RFC. Excellent, thank you! -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
