<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div name="messageBodySection" style="font-size: 14px; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, sans-serif;">On Apr 27, 2017, 4:28 PM -0700, Paul Vixie via Unbound-users <unbound-users@unbound.net>, wrote:<br /></div>
<div name="messageReplySection" style="font-size: 14px; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, sans-serif;"><br />
<blockquote type="cite" style="margin: 5px 5px; padding-left: 10px; border-left: thin solid #1abc9c;"></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" style="margin: 5px 5px; padding-left: 10px; border-left: thin solid #1abc9c;">so in effect, TCP is not required, and will never be required. the<br />
installed base and its long tail matter more than the wording of 1035. <br /></blockquote>
<div><br /></div>
<div>https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7766, proposed standard updates 1035 and 1123: <br /></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>" This document therefore updates the core DNS protocol specifications</div>
<div> such that support for TCP is henceforth a REQUIRED part of a full DNS</div>
<div> protocol implementation."</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Yes, I know about the "installed base" argument and usually agree with it. However, Internet standards evolve and, when it makes sense, the Internet follows suit. In this case, I think the benefits of TCP support given DNSSEC, privacy, spoof protection, etc., will be sufficient to move the needle over time.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Regards,<br /></div>
<div>-drc</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>