Re: IPv6 root DNS change

Julian Mehnle wrote:

> the only place where RFC 4408 is explicitly mentioning the 512 bytes
> limit is in section 3.1.4, "record size", saying that SPF records
> should be designed to stay below that limit, which is an entirely
> different issue.

| Records that are too long to fit in a single UDP packet MAY be 
| silently ignored by SPF clients.

Even if you are in the position to handle longer records without 
truncation you are free to ignore them silently.  For publishers
that is a disguised "don't try this if you want receivers to look
at your policy", isn't it ?

I don't get Stuart's proposal "just replace 512 by 811".  The old
UDP limit doesn't go away just because some root and TLD servers 
decided that they are forced to ignore it for their IPv6 purposes.

But it's an interesting topic, if you have insights to share please
consider to publish them also on the Wiki.  What a year, IPv6, IDN,
EAI, IDNAbis, 4646bis, 2821bis, 2822upd, net-utf8, ... :-)

 Frank

-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/1007/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1007/
Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=6959932&id_secret=83025423-5d842c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com