Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-08.txt

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

At 14:05 +0100 2/13/12, W.C.A. Wijngaards wrote:

>Why is: udpsize < 512 MUST be treated as 512 size?

My assumption:

1) For ease of implementation
2) Because if the bufsize is too small, the header might not fit. ;)

There's a need to set a lower bound for bufsize large enough to allow 
for even a FORMERR response.  That's, what 12 bytes give or take, way 
less than 512, but the protocol is used to 512 as hard size limit.

Do you want/need to see 512 lowered?
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at [phone]

2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext