Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements-01.txt

[Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>]

> From: "George Barwood" <george.barwood@blueyonder.co.uk>
> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:25:48 -0000
> 
> If TCP is required, it seems logical to limit UDP responses to the
> original size and deprecate the EDNS response buffer size mechanism.

EDNS0 was never intended to be a backfill for supposed TCP optionalness --
TCP was not considered optional by the people who created or approved EDNS0.

> I don't think this should be the end of it though, at risk of boring
> readers with repetition, for which I apologise, I'm advocating either
> SCTP or something like
> 
> http://www.george-barwood.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DnsServer/QRP.htm

there's some off-list work going on along these lines, but it wasn't ready
for the hiroshima meeting, which agenda seems rather overfull in any case.