In your previous mail you wrote: > As mentioned in the wg yesterday an informational document with > current behaviors may be helpful?
=> I am afraid it could only add confusion so IMHO it may not. > > On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Paul Vixie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > initiators have historically been able to assume that the responder would > not close first. that's the operational environment in which RFC 1035 has be > en interpreted since 1987. if we want the initiator to change its assumption > s then we have to say so. the saying of so may or may not constitute a proto > col change since we're clarifying the assumptions rather than asking for dif > ferent behaviour. but since we must also guide the initiator to not leave a > tcp session idle, which absolutely is a protocol change, i see no harm is bu > ndling this guidance into a single document which is collectively a revision > to the protocol. Thanks [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
