In your previous mail you wrote: > This is some good summarizing. With your solution, you don't mention > UDP. I would consider the lack of UDP an issue with moving forward at > least for wide deployment. Others seem to think otherwise.
=> I didn't add UDP in constraints but I made the "state" term loose enough to be able to be intepreted as same state lifetime than for DNS over TCP as currently specified. You have the extra round trip too... > I'd be interested in hearing opinions on this. => I am too. In theory the encription is in the session layer so we can't avoid a transport (i.e., UDP vs TCP) dependency. > The WG will help us chair form the discussion, but I still feel there is > a need for a more formalized problem statement. Stephane's draft goes a > long way, do we think it covers all the bases? => yes, we need the problem before the solution (I said less than one hour ago that XXX was another example of an IETF solution looking for its problem :-). Regards francis.dup...@fdupont.fr _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
