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.
I personally tend to agree with Ralph here. Are there any other opinions on this point? Joe: How bad would it be for you if things would stay like they are? With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
