In your previous mail you 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". > > Are you aware of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-01 ?
=> yes and I agree it will be nice to have a way to negociate the timeout between the client and the server. But unfortunately this won't apply to the current deployed base. > > 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. > > I believe that was specifically changed to accomodate for this, yes. => I think so too.a > > - is 5966bis the right place? I don't think so but another > > document means the 5966bis will be delayed... > > If signaling for this is needed, then a separate document would be good. => not needed but very useful: the idea is not to allow servers to use short timeouts with clients which express they don't matter, but to allow them with all clients. Note this is why it is a protocol change... Thanks francis.dup...@fdupont.fr _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
