Ray Bellis <ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk>: > It appears to be a solution for a problem that does not exist, based on a > misunderstanding of how TCP clients and servers are already supposed to > interact and a misrepresentation of the recommended shortening of the > standard timeout for TCP sessions that happened in RFC 5966.
I support the draft, and I'm not coming from the position of "misunderstanding of how TCP clients and servers are already supposed to interact". I am very clear on the current spec. It is just preferable to me that the TCP session behaviour be negotiated. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
