To:
Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
Date:
Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:18:09 +0200
In-Reply-To:
<20030615153049.BFCC51396B@sa.vix.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: so how about that response size draft?
At 3:30 PM +0000 2003/06/15, Paul Vixie wrote:
> akira and i both hoped that it would be adopted as a DNSOP work item
> but the discussion of this in san francisco was inconclusive and there
> has been no subsequent discussion here on the mailing list.
>
> a draft cutoff date looms. should this i-d have "-dnsop-" in its name?
I have not yet seen the draft itself, and I regret that I wasn't
there for the discussion. However, this is a topic that I have been
very concerned about since 95-96, back when we were trying to list
all 45 IP addresses for the MXes for aol.com and we were blowing the
DNS UDP packet size limits on responses, and then seeing all sorts of
weirdness with people being unable to reach us.
Out of curiosity, does anyone remember when the root servers
switched to their current naming scheme? I'm interested to know who
came up with that idea first....
> note that we also showed this draft to some of icann/iana's people and
> they were happy to see it. therefore it may have some applicability to
> somebody. should DNSOP "adopt" it and do the fold-spindle-mutilate thing?
I believe that DNSOP should adopt this draft.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.