Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wouters-edns-tcp-chain-query-00.txt

Top-reply (sorry) - agree, sounds great, willing to review and/or
contribute ideas/text.

BTW - suggestion: include (from the server) info about maximum idle time
of an open connection.
E.g. no guarantees if you try to use this without keepalives and after 5
minutes has passed.
This will often correspond to reaping state on state-ful load balancers.
Knowing $REAP_TIME may make operational improvements on implementations
where the option has been negotiated.
Unusual values of $REAP_TIME may even suggest altering the keep-alive
interval on the TCP socket, per server.

Brian

On 9/11/13 1:00 PM, "Joe Abley" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext