In your previous mail you wrote: > Francis, while my own thinking goes further-- an initiator should > not leave a persistent TCP session idle, even for a microsecond, > unless the responder has signaled its approval of such strategy--
=> it is what RFC 1035 said so a bit difficult to change in a drastic way. > I do also agree with your observation above. => thanks. BTW as pipelining initiators are very rare we have still time to fix it. > Have you considered an appropriate signal path for negotiation of > this kind? => IMHO the tcp-keepalive option is a good start point as it indicates the critical value and can be extended to be two ways (i.e., both client -> server and server -> client). Thanks francis.dup...@fdupont.fr _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
