> But it's certainly another step along the way to DNSbis by accident. Would it be useful to make it not "by accident"?
That's why I have a love-hate relationship with TLV inside DNS messages. I have a couple questions: a) make DNS over TCP/TLS sessions without TLV suck less? b) make this draft DNS-SD only, so it can fast forward... c) use the changed paradigm to work on DNSbis without the accident part? Cheers, -- Ondřej Surý -- Technical Fellow -------------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- Laboratoře CZ.NIC Milesovska 5, 130 00 Praha 3, Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.s...@nic.cz https://nic.cz/ -------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Sullivan" <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> > To: "dnsop" <dnsop@ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, 20 July, 2017 18:50:44 > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-02.txt > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 06:45:25PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: >> Is this useful for DNS at all, or is this targeted at DNS-SD only? > > I can think of at least one way it would be useful. Large > authoritatives often have a clear population of query sources that ask > a lot -- the "top talkers". It would be excellent if those clients > stood up TCP connections and kept them in place because then (1) the > server could treat their TCP connections as long-lived and (2) the > server could treat new UDP packets from those IPs as suspect. The > current TCP handling makes this mostly suck, and the > session-signalling approach makes it suck less. > > But it's certainly another step along the way to DNSbis by accident. > > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > a...@anvilwalrusden.com > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
