TCP fallback on timeout

[David Conrad]

On Apr 27, 2017, 4:28 PM -0700, Paul Vixie via Unbound-users <unbound-users at unbound.net>, wrote:

> so in effect, TCP is not required, and will never be required. the
> installed base and its long tail matter more than the wording of 1035.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7766, proposed standard updates 1035 and 1123:

"   This document therefore updates the core DNS protocol specifications
     such that support for TCP is henceforth a REQUIRED part of a full DNS
     protocol implementation."

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.

Regards,
-drc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nlnetlabs.nl/pipermail/unbound-users/attachments/20170428/5be6ac59/attachment.htm>