> Stephane Bortzmeyer <mailto:bortzme...@nic.fr>
> Saturday, February 28, 2015 9:27 AM
> [Reflections of the week-end.]
>
> ...
>
> Since we always have to manage broken software and network glitches,
> DNS programs will have to handle bad clients and servers, anyway. If
> so, what is the point of having a better signalling? Is it worth the
> cost (in implementation, and WG time)? Shouldn't we focus only on
> 5966bis and drop the two others?

no. please do not change recommended initiator behaviour in ways that
violate reasonable assumptions of current responders. if the client
wants to keep a connection open longer than it takes to send and receive
the queries they have on-hand, they should find out whether the server
agrees with this incompatible change to the connection management logic
described in RFC 1035 4.2.2.

-- 
Paul Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to