On 24Jan15, Paul Vixie allegedly wrote: > could violate older implementations' reasonable-at-the-time assumptions, > against the burden of choosing a non-interfering signal pattern, like a > new port number, or a new protocol verb.
Does it have to be that drastic? Wouldn't an EDNS option "I understand out-of-order" be enough? Once seen in a TCP session it would hold true until closed. The non-presence of such an option could then entrench the in-order assumptions that may exist in the installed base. > i expected that DNS-over-HTTP would work the same as WWW-over-HTTP, > which is to open multiple parallel TCP/80 (or TCP/443) sessions if > parallelism is required. If DNS over HTTP is really being considered, would it be better to start with HTTP/2.0 as the base protocol rather than 1.* then you get parallel for "free". Mark. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
