Moin! On 28 Nov 2025, at 15:41, Joe Abley wrote: > 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?
As you may know I think that probing in DNS is a bad idea, but even then I’m not sure what RFC9539 has to do with it when it comes to this document which focuses on the relationship between network protocol families and DNS. All currently know current and future transports for DNS (some of which are called out in RFC9539) rely on either UDP (Do53, DoQ, DoH3) or TCP (Do53, DoT, DoH2) as lower level transports so I don’t think there is a reason to call them out as the network problems will be the same. So long -Ralf ——- Ralf Weber _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
