On 6 Jul 2025, at 20:59, Tommy Jensen <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for responding. I'm confused because I sees these statements as > conflicting: (1) this isn't how protocols work, and (2) this is at least 10 > years too soon. If (1) is true, I do not understand how (2) can be true.
I think you're only talking about the DNS protocol as it is used between an application and a resolver. I don't think you are talking about the DNS protocol as it is used between resolvers and authoritative servers. But I could be wrong because you don't say that clearly. I think Paul is saying that most applications don't make their own transport choices, but instead inherit the decisions made by the administrator of the local host or network. A protocol implemented by an application in this environment doesn't have a way to influence the choice of DNS transport protocol. It could really hope that UDP is not used but it doesn't usually have a way to communicate that preference or for it to otherwise be actionable. Maybe your document is saying "don't take any special measures to accommodate DNS over UDP" and just assume that the DNS will cope? If that's what it is saying, perhaps it could say so more clearly. If your document is saying something else, I don't find it very clear. Perhaps "accommodate" needs to be spelt out a bit. For what it's worth, although anecdotally I hear that TCP transport is broken or unavailable more often than UDP transport, I don't remember the last time I saw that myself. If other protocols are jumping through hoops to accommodate a perceived inevitability of UDP transport I am sympathetic to the idea that they shouldn't bother. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
