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

[Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>]

In message <4AE8A694.5010801@gmail.com>, Doug Otis writes:
> Imposing _any_ TCP mandate represents an expedient that takes DNS in the 
> wrong direction.  As such, this draft should also include a strong 
> warning that resources needed to sustain TCP services might be 
> provisioned for other transports during aberrant demand, and that it is 
> not recommended to be dependent upon TCP availability.
 
TCP has always been expected to be implemented unless you had GOOD
reasons to not implement it and had REALLY thought about the
consequences.  Read RFC 1034 and 1123.  TCP was not MAY.  It was
SHOULD.

Does anyone here really think that any proxy vendor, that doesn't
support TCP, could successfully argue that they did that analysis
and have the result pass a laugh test?

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org