In message <20150124220926.82207.qm...@f5-external.bushwire.net>, "Mark Delany" writes: > On 24Jan15, Paul Vixie allegedly wrote: > > > could violate older implementations' reasonable-at-the-time assumptions, > > against the burden of choosing a non-interfering signal pattern, like a > > new port number, or a new protocol verb. > > Does it have to be that drastic? Wouldn't an EDNS option "I understand > out-of-order" be enough? Once seen in a TCP session it would hold true > until closed. The non-presence of such an option could then entrench > the in-order assumptions that may exist in the installed base.
Only if you want 8% of your queries to fail. http://users.isc.org/~marka/ts/alexa.optfail.html Now it can be much better. If .ZA and .NP fixed the one failing server they each have we would be down to just packet loss at the TLD level. http://users.isc.org/~marka/ts/tld.optfail.html http://users.isc.org/~marka/tld-report.html > > i expected that DNS-over-HTTP would work the same as WWW-over-HTTP, > > which is to open multiple parallel TCP/80 (or TCP/443) sessions if > > parallelism is required. > > If DNS over HTTP is really being considered, would it be better to > start with HTTP/2.0 as the base protocol rather than 1.* then you get > parallel for "free". > > > Mark. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
