DomainKey-Signature: s=main2.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws;
 q=dns; 
 h=X-IronPort-AV:X-IPAS-Result:Received:Received:From:To:CC:
 Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:
 References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language:
 X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:x-originating-ip:
 Content-Type:Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:
 MIME-Version;
 b=etp4DXOIiunK6HRO8hTnHaC1zw6ArLlj0hnp3cC2iJh4eUtIie8zk2pf
 12lIpfQVyUpB6TjEte9ag2tnwy6RpMDNZ/3OcCTSh+9qbCxRCH/QJNbAm
 KQNe46doj2rXumMHzhPpijIUHXJTX1fnIieqddW+lAuNGoLVMcNQZ6+ab
 uIHEosn75HK13KkfWPy+PO6HOq8pjGuJGlXZ3sWg0Pe2qqp0tQPT5zw4z
 QsBWXKGkve5NmVF9by0QjjNR8/wKZ;
From: Ray Bellis <Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] [TCP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQKEX2FWx5mimNr0iaouSjEON49Z0UvKqAgAAHQAA=
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:58:14 +0000
Message-ID: <E23E5370-AB0C-4F5D-91A3-17EB6FE5C60E@nominet.org.uk>
References: <20141204135801.12482.73201.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <20150104174226.GA23493@sources.org> <20150309163217.GA31109@nic.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20150309163217.GA31109@nic.fr>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <6DA3AE0ED1BCDC4381122A7FD4D2F20F@okna.nominet.org.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/iPnqyAH4Meb8venIaohUi6soGRg>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [TCP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-00.txt
Precedence: list


> On 9 Mar 2015, at 16:32, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
>=20
> I re-send here two questions that have apparently not been addressed
> in -01
>=20
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 06:42:26PM +0100,
> Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote=20
> a message of 37 lines which said:
>=20
>> Section 3, "some network devices deliberately refuse to handle DNS
>> packets containing EDNS0 options" Isn't it true of DNS-over-TCP as
>> well? SAC035 is pessimistic (see table 2). Do we have other data on
>> TCP (lack of) support in middleboxes?

Stephane, can you please elaborate - are you specifically talking about EDN=
S0 options when inside a TCP connection, or just plain support for any TCP =
at all?

In the latter case, that's already addressed by RFC 5625 and to an extent b=
y RFC 5966 and shouldn't (IMHO) need further elaboration.

kind regards,

Ray