On 28 Nov 2025, at 14:04, Tobias Fiebig <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ... >> A resolver can for various reasons also initiate connections >> via TCP for resolution to an authoritative server. >> >> Now if something else was meant by this section please explain. > > I think you text suggestion makes this more clear. Changing it in the > document. We are calling out TCP in this document (for example, here) as if it's the only alternative to UDP. RFC 9539 opens the door to alternatives that could also be used to avoid fragmentation problems, I think. Rather than explicitly calling out TCP, is it perhaps worthwhile being more open in the language to other alternatives to UDP? I think I am not alone in hoping for a future in which all DNS messages between servers are carried over encrypted transports and that UDP/TCP is relegated to a long tail of support for legacy systems. It seems odd to ignore the possibility of that outcome. Much more minor point, you have "Joey Abley" in the acknowledgments section. If that is me, can we drop the "y"? Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
