As mentioned in the wg yesterday an informational document with current behaviors may be helpful?
Jared Mauch > On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > > initiators have historically been able to assume that the responder would not > close first. that's the operational environment in which RFC 1035 has been > interpreted since 1987. if we want the initiator to change its assumptions > then we have to say so. the saying of so may or may not constitute a protocol > change since we're clarifying the assumptions rather than asking for > different behaviour. but since we must also guide the initiator to not leave > a tcp session idle, which absolutely is a protocol change, i see no harm is > bundling this guidance into a single document which is collectively a > revision to the protocol. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
