> On 6 Jan 2016, at 21:58, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > > Hiya, >> >> Speaking for myself I don’t see this as the solution to managing DTLS >> sessions, I think that would be better handled with a TLS extension. > > Yes, that's the obvious answer, and a not bad answer. Did the > dnsop WG (or dprive) consider the issue already?
It is a good question, but it wan't explicitly discussed AFAIK. >>> - 3.3.2: > > Oops:-) Typo there sorry, the one that puzzled me is at the end > of 3.2.2 where it says " This holds true even if a previous > edns-keepalive-option exchange occurred on the existing TCP > connection." Ah, this is to do with the semantics of EDNS0 exchanges. It just clarifies that if the server chooses not to send the option in this scenario it is effectively equivalent to the server sending a 0 timeout (indicating it does not want to continue with keepalive) even it if previously indicated it supported it. Sara. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
