On 1/7/16 6:52 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hi Sara, > > On 07/01/16 10:54, sara wrote: >> >>> 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. > > Okey-dokey, I'll ask Joel how he prefers to handle this on the > call today and go with whatever he recommends.
oh goodie, happy to discussion, definitely not the arbiter of taste. >> >>>>> - 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. > > Ah grand, I get it now. I think the way you've explained it above > is clearer for me anyway, so maybe consider saying it that way if > you do any more changes. > > Cheers, > S. > >> >> Sara. >> > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
