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 supposed to
interact and a misrepresentation of the recommended shortening of the standard
timeout for TCP sessions that happened in RFC 5966.
I agree. We investigated and we found that it was not needed to detect
bad broken TCP. But then some other people wanted this extension for
better determining of load on DNS servers, and they said they would like
this document to continue.
So the original reason is indeed not needed. We could expand on the
second reason in the draft, or drop the draft if there is no one
left who wants it.
Paul
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
