[e2e] TCP improved closing strategies?

[David P. Reed]

On 08/18/2009 11:42 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> It means you didn't need TCP.
Exactly!
> You can't flush TCP state unless you know
> you don't need what it provides - notably protection that the next TCP
> connection on that socket pair won't be affected by late arriving
> segments from the previous connection.
>
> Let's not change TCP semantics in this regard; let's just not use TCP
> where TCP semantics aren't needed.
>    
If you recall, that was my original point, in my original response.  DNS 
shouldn't use TCP just because some DNS technique gets expansive enough 
to sometimes require more than 1 IP datagram. As I originally suggested, 
simple information theoretic analysis suggests that one can do the DNS 
request/response within one UDP datagram each way, so my suggestion in 
this case is to send the DNS  layer protocol designer back to the 
drawing board with an information theorist and cryptographer at his/her 
elbow.