<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 16, 2012, at 9:31 AM, W.C.A. Wijngaards wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Monaco; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">There is no limit imposed (apart from packet size and the 16-bit<br>counter for the number of RRs and so on). So, practically, 30 or so<br>to keep easily within UDP message sizes (you would need to test to see<br>the compression benefits and resulting message size), and with TCP<br>failover up to 64Kib of data (thousands of SRVs).<br></span></blockquote><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Coincidentally, to make the point that there is no limit on the size of an RRset (a TXT RR in this case) the SRV specification (RFC2782) has been available through the following query for quite some time now:</div><div><br></div><div>dig @ns.secret-wg.org _srv.secret-wg.org TXT +dnssec</div><br>
<br></body></html>