Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wouters-edns-tcp-keepalive-00.txt (fwd)
Paul Wouters <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.dnsext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013, Mark Andrews wrote: >>> An RFC 5966 server supports persistent TCP but does not advertise this >>> fact. >> >> I hope to have some measurements done in time for Vancouver to see what >> the percentage of queries/servers is where this is a problem. That could >> help assess whether or not we still need a special indication via edns >> or not. > > Why? Clients should be able to handle the connection being closed > unexpectedly and retry any uncompleted queries. I'm trying to reduce dns(sec) latency, not adding more repeating tcp failures. If it turns out that most obtained DNS resolvers are useless for TCP than there is a need to give a clear indication to a client that a resolver does work well. The question is how pervasive are rfc 5966 compliant resolvers out there, and whether there is a need to advertise those who are. Paul _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext