Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9 Nov 2015, at 5:02, Tony Finch wrote: > > > > The rationale for this document is still completely wrong. It does not > > provide any reduction in latency compared to the existing DNS protocol. > > Is that really true? That is, I assume that you mean the latency with this > proposal is due to the recursive still having to go fetch all the pieces.
No, I mean stub/recursive latency. > However, if the recursive already has some or all of the answers in its cache, > this proposal reduces the latency compared to the stub asking for each piece. No, as I have explained at least twice before. With the current DNS protocol, a stub resolver can get all the records it needs to validate a response in 1RTT, by sending multiple concurrent queries for all the possible delegation points in the QNAME. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <[email protected]> http://dotat.at/ Biscay, Southeast Fitzroy: Southwesterly 5 or 6 in far north, otherwise variable 3. Moderate or rough. Fair. Good. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
