This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/dns-wg@ripe.net/

[dns-wg] Re: Response size of JP's DNSKEY was changed

• Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Response size of JP's DNSKEY was changed
• Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] DOMAIN attributes review

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzmeyer at nic.fr
Wed Jul 13 11:29:16 CEST 2011

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 05:30:23PM +0900,
 Masato Minda <minmin at jprs.co.jp> wrote 
 a message of 71 lines which said:

> In this condition, IPv4 is 1339, IPv6 is 1359. It's ok. :-)
> It is a bit trouble. But, we will do our best.
> 
> Unfortunately it is impossible to less than 1280 in current condition.

What's the purpose of this exercice? Many TLD have larger DNSKEY sets
(for instance, .FR) and "it works". Is it really a good idea to change
the DNSKEY set, just to avoid problems with the minority of broken
sites? What is your goal in doing so?

• Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Response size of JP's DNSKEY was changed
• Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] DOMAIN attributes review

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ dns-wg Archives ]