[DNSOP] Re: DNSOPFwd: New Version Notification for draft-tojens-dnsop-do-not-accommodate-udp53-00.txt

[Petr Špaček <[e-mail]>]

On 08. 07. 25 17:01, Ben Schwartz wrote:
> I think it could be interesting to have an informational draft that:
> 
> 1. Documents "always send empty UDP responses with TC=1" as an allowed 
> DNS server behavior.
> 2. Documents "start with TCP" as an allowed DNS client behavior.
> 3. Enumerates all the RFCs and hacks that can be skipped if you do 
> this.  (Maybe try deleting all that logic from BIND and report the code 
> size savings?)
> 
> I don't think this is likely to lead to a big shift away from UDP, but 
> if it makes simple implementations easier that's probably a good thing.

Personally I don't see need for yet another document. TC=1 is a standard 
thing so I don't see the value. You can do that (and deal with breakage) 
even without a document.

Moreover assumption in the document pointed out be Wes upthread
 > stub->resolver and resolver->authoritative as being the same and 
subject to the same suggestion of "just assume TCP exists"

... is simply wrong. These are very different landscapes with different 
deployment characteristics, resources available, attack surface, and 
thus connection management needs.

Petr Špaček