[dns-operations] amending 6891-bis

[Jim Reid]

On 11 Sep 2013, at 06:30, Paul Vixie <paul at redbarn.org> wrote:

> excuse me, i left an edit out of my earlier proposal.
> 
> This specification does not define a maximum for any future IP transport
> protocol, and so both initiators and responders should be prepared to
> receive messages as large as the 9 kilobyte ethernet jumbogram size in
> preparation for future transport protocol development."

Perhaps that should be "at least as large as the 9 kilobyte"? A future transport (or link level) protocol might permit even bigger jumbograms.

Apologies for using a meaningful Subject: header. :-)