DNSOP,
Joel our AD sent this note out two weeks ago to get some working group
consensus on this discussion which came up during the IESG telechat on
tcp-keepalive
I am in agreement with Joel on this (tcp-keepalive is not the mechanism
for DTLS), but it should be thought of.
any opinions? I'd like to get some resolution so we can move this along
thanks
tim
On 1/7/16 10:30 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
From Stephens discuss, this is a question we should probably answer for
ourselves. (it's no longer a consideration as a discuss.
The question: how does this option play with DNS over
DTLS? [1]
The reason I ask is that there may be a need in that case
for some similar option (or a TLS extension maybe) though
for the DTLS session lifetime and not a TCP session
lifetime. At present you are saying that this option is
not it. And that's a fine answer but you could also have
said that this could also be used for DTLS session
lifetime handling. And that last might make sense for
operational reasons (not sure really, but could be).
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls-03
My take personally is tcp keepalive option is not the mechanism for
dtls, but then we get multiple options specifying essentially the same
sort of value at some point in the future.
I just want to make sure we have a good reading on this.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
