Ray Bellis :
> It appears to be a solution for a problem that does not exist, based on a
> misunderstanding of how TCP clients and servers are already supposed to
> interact and a misrepresentation of the recommended shortening of the
> standard timeout for TCP sessions that happened in RFC 5966.
Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2014, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> > > this extension allows a significant resource saving when used on mobile
> > > phones.
> >
> > Yes, I pointed that out in the article linked above. But EDNS chain
> > queries only reduce the data sent and received, not the number
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014, Tony Finch wrote:
this extension allows a significant resource saving when used on mobile
phones.
Yes, I pointed that out in the article linked above. But EDNS chain
queries only reduce the data sent and received, not the number of round
trips. The maximum number of round t
Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2014, Tony Finch wrote:
> > Tim Wicinski wrote:
> > >
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query/
> >
> > I do not think this protocol extension is necessary.
> >
> > I have previously described how you can get the same round-trip
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014, Ray Bellis wrote:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive/
I do NOT support adoption of edns-tcp-keepalive.
It appears to be a solution for a problem that does not exist, based on a
misunderstanding of how TCP clients and servers are already s
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> I have previously described how you can get the same round-trip
>> performance by sending queries for all the chain records at once:
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg13540.html
>>
>
> That doesn't help a stub resolver
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014, Tony Finch wrote:
Tim Wicinski wrote:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query/
I do not think this protocol extension is necessary.
I have previously described how you can get the same round-trip
performance by sending queries for all the chai
On 8 Oct 2014, at 10:35, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> The performance problem that EDNS chain queries are trying to fix is an
> problem with existing server implementations, NOT a protocol limitation.
> Both BIND and Unbound fail to handle queries concurrently when they arrive
> over one TCP connection
Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query/
I do not think this protocol extension is necessary.
I have previously described how you can get the same round-trip
performance by sending queries for all the chain records at once:
http://www.ietf.org/m
On 8 Oct 2014, at 09:21, Ray Bellis wrote:
> I do NOT support adoption of edns-tcp-keepalive.
Ah, I see that particular horse has already bolted.
My comments still stand, though. I do not believe this option is useful, or
required.
Ray
___
DN
On 7 Oct 2014, at 18:27, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> All
>
> We have two drafts expiring shortly and I wanted to get the sense of the
> working group.
>
> These are the two EDNS extensions worked on by Mr. Paul Wouters. They
> initially had no home, and we gave them a home, and there was a lot of
11 matches
Mail list logo
