In your previous mail you wrote: > I believe 5966bis already addresses your first point quite clearly. >(note: first point is to make TCP support mandatory) > > For example, it says: > > This document therefore updates the core DNS protocol specifications > such that support for TCP is henceforth a REQUIRED part of a full DNS > protocol implementation.
=> but has this statement got a consensus? If it is the case of course there is no reason to write twice the same thing. > Regarding your second point, Paul already pointed you to > draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive, which I quite liked myself, but I > think others felt it was unnecessarily complex. Here's what 5966bis says: > > DNS currently has no connection signaling mechanism. Clients and > servers may close a connection at any time. Clients MUST be prepared > to retry failed queries on broken connections. => unfortunately this is a change in the protocol the document is not supposed to do here even it both makes sense and follows the real world situation. > I agree with Paul Hoffman that connection signaling should be done > in a separate document. => we have one (in fact the problem is we have two). Thanks francis.dup...@fdupont.fr PS: I note your opinion is to improve 5966bis. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
