Jim,
On 20 Jul 2016, at 9:18, Jim Reid wrote:
It's a bit of a stretch to call that a suggestion and a far bigger one
to claim cookies and/or TCP as a necessary precondition. There's no
language like "clients and servers SHOULD (MUST?) use DNS
cookies/TCP/DNSoverTLS for EXTRA queries and responses". Well, not yet
anyway. Maybe in the next release.
And if DNS over TLS is the answer, the overheads of that handshake
would more than cancel out the benefit of optimising away an extra
query/response RTT.
FWIW, I think it's a Bad Idea and the start of a very slippery slope
to make queries or responses to QTYPEs dependent on the underlying
transport protocol (modulo AXFR of course). Are layering violations
acceptable nowadays?
+lots, I see mentions of TCP and/or cookies popping up in more and more
drafts and it has to stop. Packet size concerns exist for every usage of
DNS, and new features should not pretend they are so special that they
deserve special treatment in this regard. Such decisions are operational
and they don’t belong in every draft that makes packets slightly
bigger.
Of course, when it’s obvious we need TCP-like semantics, like in the
session draft for dnssd push, that’s fine.
Kind regards,
--
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
