[e2e] [unclassified] TCP improved closing strategies?

Dan McDonald danmcd at sun.com
Wed Aug 12 20:26:25 PDT 2009

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 09:14:54PM -0400, David P. Reed wrote:
> I'm not sure whether it wouldn't be better to think through a non-TCP 
> solution here.  TCP is incredibly heavy duty for the purpose of doing a 
> properly "secure" DNS transaction, which ultimately involves a single 
> request-response in the most common case.
> And if you do, there is no reason why the server needs to maintain 
> *connection* state at all - connections are for long term interactions.
> Am I missing something here?

I thought (and I'm not SecureDNS wizard) that SecureDNS packets often exceed
PathMTU for most of the Internet, and that you wanted segmentation *and*
retransmission covered.


More information about the end2end-interest mailing list