Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wouters-edns-tcp-chain-query-00.txt
Joe Abley <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.dnsext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hey, Having now spent more than 15 seconds thinking about this... On 2013-09-11, at 11:54, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Dave Lawrence wrote: > >> It would be useful to have a way to negotiate the TCP connection >> behavior, including options like signalling that the server may close >> the connection as soon as the response is sent, or that the client >> wants to send more than one request. I don't think this meaning >> should be bundled into the DNSSEC chain query option, however. > > I've heard several people tell me this now and I agree. The question is: > > 1) do we want to clarify in a separate draft that the TCP connection > can remain open for re-use? Given that this apparently breaks assumptions already present in widely-deployed software, that sounds like an uphill battle. > 2) do we want to use another edns0 option to ask the server to keep the > TCP connection, which the server indicates by returning this option > in its TCP reply? I think yes, and upon >15 seconds of reflection I can't think of a reason why you'd want such an option to be more general than this specific functionality. Other transport-related signalling can use different edns0 options. > It seems to be 2) is probably a better idea, and I'm happy to write that > up in a separate document. Agree. Joe _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext