> Tim Wicinski <mailto:tjw.i...@gmail.com> > Tuesday, January 20, 2015 7:37 AM > ... > The chairs are wondering: > 1) if their is still have a need for such an option, and > > 2) if there is consensus on competing proposals. > > > If you see a use case for the EDNS tcp-keepalive option as originally > discussed, please say so, on the list, by February 4, 2015. > > If you want to pursue the connection-close draft, please say so, on > the list, by February 4, 2015, especially if you're willing to work on > it. > > If we don't hear anything about either, we drop them both.
my input is not a direct answer to either question, but, may be relevant. my view is: we can't reliably signal this capability, so any option we pursue will create a DoS vector for either new or old initiators or responders, and the right answer is to pursue DNS-over-HTTP as an alternate transport that already has TCP persistence built into it. i also note that we've got a JSON layout for DNS messages now, thanks to bortzmeyer and hoffman; and we've got a reasonably portable and high quality DNS shim layer now, thanks to the getdns team. so: adding DNS-over-HTTP would happen faster than revising TCP/53. i realize that "no" votes aren't counted. but that's going to be my input if any document along the lines of adding persistence to tcp/53 is adopted by the WG. so, for full disclosure, i wanted to weigh in at this stage. -- Paul Vixie
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
