> Francis Dupont <mailto:[email protected]> > Wednesday, January 28, 2015 5:19 AM > In your previous mail you wrote: > >> Francis, while my own thinking goes further-- an initiator should >> not leave a persistent TCP session idle, even for a microsecond, >> unless the responder has signaled its approval of such strategy-- > > => it is what RFC 1035 said so a bit difficult to change in a drastic way.
if we're about to make a change, then we have an opportunity to make a strong recommendation. the two will only be uptaken together, and at that, very rarely. but at least we'll have met the burden of "first, do no harm." > >> I do also agree with your observation above. > > => thanks. BTW as pipelining initiators are very rare we have still time > to fix it. yes. > >> Have you considered an appropriate signal path for negotiation of >> this kind? > > => IMHO the tcp-keepalive option is a good start point as it indicates > the critical value and can be extended to be two ways (i.e., both client > -> server and server -> client). thanks. -- Paul Vixie
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
