Ray, On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:57:39 +0100 Ray Bellis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Whilst discussing 5966-bis with my co-authors connection-close with the > co-authors, we were reminded of this point I made in > draft-bellis-dnsop-connection-close in relation to ยง7 of RFC 6891: > > " TODO: note - the constraint in RFC 6891 appears unnecessarily strict > - it appears to mandate that the EDNS(0) support indication is on a > per-request basis, but it would be reasonable on a connection- > orientated transport to assume that ANY preceding request on that > connection with an OPT RR is sufficient to indicate that the client > supports EDNS(0)." > > Is this something that the WG believes needs to be fixed? The potential benefit is that a client could omit the OPT RR on subsequent messages? Seems a relatively small benefit, and there are costs. (Are there other benefits?) The server would have to have some way to know what the EDNS(0) options of subsequent messages are. A simple way would be to assume that all subsequent messages have the same EDNS(0) unless otherwise specified. With this setup, a client could omit the OPT RR on subsequent messages. But the client would somehow have to know that the server acts this way. We currently don't have any way to let the client know this. We can add one, of course, but it seems like a relatively large amount of work for very little gain. Cheers, -- Shane _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
