Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wouters-edns-tcp-keepalive-00.txt (fwd)
Mark Andrews <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.dnsext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In message <[email protected]>, Paul Wouters w rites: > 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 All DNS servers should already handle multiple questions over a TCP socket. This is *basic* RFC 1035. Just send the queries and deal with the fact that you may have broken servers. Adding a new option often the worst thing you can do to fix a failure to follow specification. It is definitely not needed to fix this problem. Just write a RFC with a title like "Common DNS server errors in handling queries over TCP" which points out that DNS servers are expected to handle multiple queries over TCP. Then a user has a second clue bat to go beat the vendor over the head with. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext