In your previous mail you wrote: > i believe that the last of the old-style initiators who treated > premature closure by the responder as an urgent condition warranting a > message to the console or the system log file have diminished to the > level of noise, but that the change francis is asking for here, along > with the clarification i'm asking for above as to non-idleness, along > with a clarification to the effect that initiators SHOULD NOT treat > premature closure by the responder as an urgent condition, reaches the > level of "protocol change" not "clarification".
=> so we should not allow servers to use a too small timeout, i.e., we have to propose a value of some seconds. BTW this should be enough for the only standard case of idling which is the SOA + xXFR (the initiator just checks the serial in the returned SOA is greater). > since i know of stub resolvers (which i wrote and which saw wide distributio > n) which treat premature closure by the responder as an urgent condition, i > believe that a recommendation that this not be done is now necessary, and i > also believe that such a recommendation constitutes, as francis claims here, > a protocol change. => we are in strong agreement about this point. Thanks francis.dup...@fdupont.fr _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
