On 6/12/15, 8:07, "Shane Kerr" <sh...@time-travellers.org> wrote: >If the question is, "should we change the protocol so that EDNS over >connection-oriented transports works differently", then I think the >answer is, "hm... interesting. It probably won't provide a big win, >but lets explore it."
At first I didn't take to the notion that a DNS message pulled from the datagram transport would be handled differently than pulled from the stream transport. But then I realized this is already done, in TCP there are 2 octets containing the length of the DNS message. So, architecturally, there's a foothold. Or perhaps there's a different vehicle (is so much as the OPT RR is a vehicle) for meta data when using a stream than when using a datagram. The sender would have to use the "right" one, the receiver would have to know what to do with what it gets. (Like, grandparent-in EDNS0 for TCP.) Just some thoughts.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
