Moin, > So maybe saying something like other protocols that carry DNS > payloads have their own mechanism to deal with these and are > out of scope of this document.
Currently on that; The text I would propose is: <=== Note: Please note that this document only explicitly discusses DNS- over-TCP and DNS-over-UDP. [RFC9539] documents the opportunistic use of several other transport methods between recursive and authoritative DNS severs, including DNS over various encrypted transports. Some of these technologies provide additional mechanisms for preventing the impact of a reduced PMTU or MTU blackholes. Guidance in this document focuses on IP version support, and questions of the underlying transport protocol (TCP or UDP). If DNS servers use an additional protocol layer, e.g., DNS-over-TLS [RFC7858] or DNS-over-QUIC [RFC9250], for their communication, and that protocol supports additional measures to prevent fragmentation on the IP layer related issues, these measures SHOULD be used for the connection. Otherwise, if the protocol is not resilient to IP layer fragmentation related issues by default, the above guidance for TCP and UDP based connections SHOULD be applied analogously. ===> This leaves the topic, imho, sufficiently open, yet focused. Thoughts? With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
