On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:17 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: >>> First, for a same transaction, the cost from using TCP may be more than the >>> gain from the queries you save, which may ultimately let the performance >>> become even worse. Do you have any consideration on this? >> >>And also, if already doing tcp the the auth server, why not just ask the >>4 questions asynchronously over the TCP channel, instead of waiting to >>see if the server will give you a freebie, where you might have to send >>another query (After the RTT) for the data? > > In most cases, you won't know what other questions to ask until you > get the initial response back. In some cases, e.g., domains used in > web pages, you won't know the other questions until you've done a lot > of other work, too. > > I'm not sure whether this is a good idea, but the motivation makes sense.
I'm also not sure that it is a good idea - it may be a case of premature optimization (30 years on :-)), but I figured it was worth discussing. It seems that there are a number of places where it might make things harder^w, better, stronger, faster (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2cYWfq--Nw&t=0m50s), and doesn't really violate the spec (too much!) I'm surprised that no-one has yet commented on the 'Let's just co-opt the Z bit for this' - I'm guessing that folk are not sure if I'm kidding or not, and are scared to ask :-) W > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
