Subject: [Enum] More Experienced

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:23:20 +0100

Hi Folks,
  On the subject of drafts, the next version of the Experiences draft  
has just popped out.

For those of you who haven't discovered the wonderful rfcdiff web  
service at:
     <http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht>

This version adds a new issue (Interpretation of 3403 and 3761) on  
what the heck the text means about non-terminals. YMMV.

It also tightens up the DNS requirements a lot (in section 6).

<ignite>
NOTE - this does not explicitly rely on the new edns0 draft, so there  
is currently some duplication.</ignite>
<fire>Speaking purely for myself, after the fiasco with the MSG  
document [that was blown into limbo by a requirement to insert a  
pointless normative (rather than informative) reference to a document  
that was then un-approved], caution is advisable (for which read  
"never again" or "fooled me once, shame on you, ...").</fire>

Seriously folks, please look at the recommendation on the suggested  
EDNS0 size value (1280 octets). This is in line with RFC3226. I for  
one would appreciate any comments on this value (too low, too high,  
breaks everything, ...). It seems to work well from the end points  
we've tried, but...

all the best,
   Lawrence

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum