Re: [DNSOP] Enough latency obsession Re: Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-00

2014-12-28 Thread Paul Vixie
> Guangqing Deng > Sunday, December 28, 2014 10:52 PM > ... there do exist some ones who think the DNS resolution delay is not > as short as they expected, especially those running applications > depending on the DNS resolution. early internet applications were wr

Re: [DNSOP] Enough latency obsession Re: Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-00

2014-12-28 Thread Guangqing Deng
From: Mukund Sivaraman Date: 2014-12-17 09:21 To: Nicholas Weaver CC: dnsop; Paul Vixie Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Enough latency obsession Re: Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-00 Hi Nicholas On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 02:44:40PM -0500, Nicholas Weaver wrote: > > Its time to stop obsessin

Re: [DNSOP] Enough latency obsession Re: Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-00

2014-12-22 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 02:44:40PM -0500, Nicholas Weaver wrote a message of 34 lines which said: > DNS doesn't exist in a vacuum, but then goes to at minimum, a TCP > handshake, and who knows what else beyond it. But other people are obsessed, too. The TCP guys published RFC 7413. And the TL

Re: [DNSOP] Enough latency obsession Re: Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-00

2014-12-16 Thread Mukund Sivaraman
Hi Nicholas On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 02:44:40PM -0500, Nicholas Weaver wrote: > > Its time to stop obsessing over latency in DNS! > > DNS doesn't exist in a vacuum, but then goes to at minimum, a TCP > handshake, and who knows what else beyond it. Amdahl's law matters. > > How many headaches wo