Hi Mukund,
On 10/07/2024 16:57, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
The current DNS protocols have been able to evolve so well since 1987
because of their flexibility. I suggest that limits be left to
implementations rather than be set in stone in RFC. It could result in
surprises when DNS data is extra-ordinary depending upon the
implementation. But I feel it's better to leave the flexibility of the
protocol as it is.
I agree about the flexibility and evolution in general but with my
implementer hat on I don't want those kind of limits to be left to
implementations because implementations cannot back arbitrary limit
choices without documents/research. CVEs help with that though :)
And in order to resolve a dispute on limit values and get past the "but
it works on x.x.x.x" arguments, we resort to flag days.
When I mentioned "sensible number" for RRs before, I am thinking around
a generous double of what someone would normally expect value which
could leave ample room for evolution while still being more restrictive
than the unlimited practice of today.
Best regards,
-- Yorgos
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
