On 8 Oct 2014, at 21:07, David C Lawrence t...@akamai.com wrote:
It is just preferable to me that the TCP session behaviour be negotiated.
Can you please elaborate?
What particular benefits do you anticipate arising from such a negotiation?
kind regards,
Ray
a strong vetting. They have been adopted
as working group documents some time ago.
The documents are:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive/
I do NOT support adoption of edns-tcp-keepalive
Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query/
I do not think this protocol extension is necessary.
I have previously described how you can get the same round-trip
performance by sending queries for all the chain records at once:
On 8 Oct 2014, at 10:35, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
The performance problem that EDNS chain queries are trying to fix is an
problem with existing server implementations, NOT a protocol limitation.
Both BIND and Unbound fail to handle queries concurrently when they arrive
over one TCP
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014, Tony Finch wrote:
Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query/
I do not think this protocol extension is necessary.
I have previously described how you can get the same round-trip
performance by sending
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Paul Wouters p...@nohats.ca wrote:
I have previously described how you can get the same round-trip
performance by sending queries for all the chain records at once:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg13540.html
That doesn't help a stub
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014, Ray Bellis wrote:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive/
I do NOT support adoption of edns-tcp-keepalive.
It appears to be a solution for a problem that does not exist, based on a
misunderstanding of how TCP clients and servers are already
Paul Wouters p...@nohats.ca wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014, Tony Finch wrote:
Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query/
I do not think this protocol extension is necessary.
I have previously described how you can get the
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014, Tony Finch wrote:
this extension allows a significant resource saving when used on mobile
phones.
Yes, I pointed that out in the article linked above. But EDNS chain
queries only reduce the data sent and received, not the number of round
trips. The maximum number of round
Ray Bellis ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk:
It appears to be a solution for a problem that does not exist, based on a
misunderstanding of how TCP clients and servers are already supposed to
interact and a misrepresentation of the recommended shortening of the
standard timeout for TCP sessions that
ago.
The documents are:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive/
I have thought about tbis and the opinion of this chair is that they are
actually ready for a WGLC round and we pick up some
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:27:40PM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote:
The documents are:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive/
I support both, and will review if needed.
--
Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org
12 matches
Mail list logo
