IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] Re: draft-fujiwara-dnsop-dns-upper-limit-values

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Wed, 10 July 2024 09:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E83C1840E6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=portfast.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2hmo8jGkq0oW for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.portfast.net (mail.portfast.net [IPv6:2a03:9800:20:1::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF672C180B73 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=portfast.net; s=dkim; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: From:References:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=wwfhebaCtqluAhTxanHf+XFNbu+HVDzAO/lpOkveo1k=; b=OwjCKo50fy6tJxWR9nOCaxp0wy 6EYv4j40sXbAuWeoTDL65HnM2aliy883atsHKiSk09a4DxP7/vhnzrAOUOiWlTNpoqUZ6l0SdGiuF V4E53P1ozJXD9rkL/DjmiCLKn3p0NNryFGqLbq21MUcgJle0pVfvTJ7B/lh+HhKYGl58=;
Received: from [213.18.153.123] (port=63437 helo=[10.1.2.79]) by mail.portfast.net ([188.246.200.9]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_128_GCM:128) id 1sRTVm-00DEUj-2g (Exim 4.96) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:21:18 +0100
Message-ID: <b46fb097-d8d9-4765-b797-18c8e8e74389@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:21:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20240709.190627.2171739541556622717.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
Content-Language: en-GB
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20240709.190627.2171739541556622717.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID-Hash: OW3H4QARLRDR6WVSSTIDPD3V6YNJY2WE
X-Message-ID-Hash: OW3H4QARLRDR6WVSSTIDPD3V6YNJY2WE
X-MailFrom: ray@bellis.me.uk
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: draft-fujiwara-dnsop-dns-upper-limit-values
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/yHTPoQTQI_Bhb5VXGPiMFLYDEGw>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>


On 09/07/2024 11:06, Kazunori Fujiwara wrote:
> Dear DNSOP,
> 
> I submitted new draft that proposes to consider "Upper limit value
> for DNS". If you are interested, please read and comment it.
> 

I disagree with the rationale for 13 name servers.

The root (and .com) have that because it was what would fit into packets
of a particular size given their naming scheme and that scheme's
efficient compressibility.

If there is to be a recommended limit, it should be specifically for
packet size reasons, and not just "because this is what the root does".

IIRC, Vixie et al wrote a draft on this, but it didn't reach RFC status.

Ah, there it is:

   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-15.txt

Ray

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status