Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 10 May 2011 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB9A1E0744 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2011 11:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.704, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o+JCXO0mhwsI for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2011 11:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34951E0693 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2011 11:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:52728) by ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1QJrN6-00063q-Y0 (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 10 May 2011 19:09:24 +0100
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1QJrN6-0003ut-H3 (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 10 May 2011 19:09:24 +0100
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 19:09:24 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Chris Thompson <cet1@cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <Prayer.1.3.3.1105101802400.32615@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1105101841030.19348@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <4DC94AE6.5000903@ogud.com> <Prayer.1.3.3.1105101802400.32615@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 18:09:29 -0000

A few nits:

Section 1. "The maximum allowable size of a DNS Message is limited
to 512 bytes." Insert "transmitted over UDP without EDNS0".

"Many of DNS's protocol limits are too small for uses which are commom or
desired to become common." Is there more than just the UDP packet size?
Should it say "This limit is too small for uses which are commom or
desired to become common, and the cost of using TCP instead of UDP for
most requests is too high."

The last two sentences of paragraph 3 repeat paragraph 2.

Otherwise it looks OK to me.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Rockall, Malin, Hebrides: South 5 to 7, occasionally gale 8 at first in
Rockall and Malin, veering west or northwest 4 or 5, then backing southwest 5
or 6 later. Rough or very rough. Occasional rain. Moderate or good,
occasionally poor.