1. Summary
Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski
Area Director: Joel Jaggeli
Document Type: Proposed Standard
This document defines an EDNS0 option ("edns-tcp-keepalive") that
allows DNS servers to signal a variable idle timeout. This
signalling facilitates a better balance of UDP and TCP transport
between individual clients and servers, reducing the impact of
problems associated with UDP transport and allowing the state
associated with TCP transport to be managed effectively with minimal
impact on the DNS transaction time.
2. Review and Consensus
This document originally was adopted but had a few points of controversy over
the initial size of the keep alive option. Another draft was written at one
with a different solution. The authors ended up collaborating on this document
and the final solution with input from several working group members.
3. Intellectual Property
There is no IPR claims made, and the authors have no direct, personal knowledge
of any IPR.
4. Other Points
- Downward References
There are no downward references
- IANA Considerations:
Registry: DNS EDNS0 Option Codes (OPT)
IANA is directed to assign an EDNS0 option code for edns-tcp-keepalive.
IANA has been contacted and awaiting response. The Expert Review for the EDNS
Option Code has approved this.
Checklist
X- Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is ready
for publication?
X- Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header?
X- Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as a
brief summary?
X- Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately explained in the
introduction?
X- Have all required formal reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been
requested and/or completed?
X- Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits
X- Has each author stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR
related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs
78 and 79?
X- Have all references within this document been identified as either normative
or informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified?
X- Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for
advancement and are otherwise in a clear state?
X- If publication of this document changes the status of any existing RFCs, are
those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the changes listed in the
abstract and discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in the introduction?
X- If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered?