> On Mar 24, 2015, at 3:39 PM, Francis Dupont <francis.dup...@fdupont.fr> wrote: > > > So I propose: > - make clear that TCP support is mandatory. > - allow servers to use the timeout they like, even a zero timeout > (the last point should be discussed). Note a zero timeout doesn't > mean "send the response and close" but "send the response, check > there is not pending query, and close". > > Now there are the not technical questions to solve first: > - is DNSOP chartered to do this? Point 4 says "protocol maintenance" > and point 5 allows more if the area director agree. > > - is 5966bis the right place? I don't think so but another > document means the 5966bis will be delayed...
I believe 5966bis already addresses your first point quite clearly. For example, it says: This document therefore updates the core DNS protocol specifications such that support for TCP is henceforth a REQUIRED part of a full DNS protocol implementation. Regarding your second point, Paul already pointed you to draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive, which I quite liked myself, but I think others felt it was unnecessarily complex. Here's what 5966bis says: DNS currently has no connection signaling mechanism. Clients and servers may close a connection at any time. Clients MUST be prepared to retry failed queries on broken connections. I agree with Paul Hoffman that connection signaling should be done in a separate document. DW _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
