Subject: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-07

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 12:44:03 -0400

Dear colleagues,

It has taken me longer than I expected, but I have reviewed
draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-07.  

I note that in section 2.2.3, we have this:

   A zone's name servers should be reachable by all IP transport
   protocols (e.g., IPv4 and IPv6) in common use.

I have read differing opinions on whether it is better to have
protocol-dedicated servers (on the grounds that it makes
troubleshooting in a world of poorly implemented dual stacks easier)
or to have all-protocol name servers.  I think therefore that the
reasoning for the above claim should be spelled out in more detail.

Other than that, I think this is a good and useful draft, and should
be advanced.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
jabber: [email-masked]                 +1 416 646 3304 x4110

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 07 Jun 2007 05:38:19 +0000

> reasoning for the above claim should be spelled out in more detail.

what i meant was that a zone should have servers reachable by every
IP transport protocol in common use, in order that the zone be reachable
by all DNS initiators no matter what IP transport protocol they're using.

i can see that the writing as quoted above is sloppy, and doesn't say what
i thought it said, and i can clean it up if the WG thinks it's important.

> Other than that, I think this is a good and useful draft, and should

me too!
-- 
Paul Vixie

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 07 Jun 2007 05:38:19 +0000

me too!
-- 
Paul Vixie

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:18:49 -0700

> i thought it said, and i can clean it up if the WG thinks it's important.

<hat wg-co-chair="off" just-another-bozo="on">

I think that clarifying this would be advisable, as the present
wording is subject to misinterpretation.  Given how long the WG has
spun on this draft, I'd recommend doing it just by proposing a
replacement for the sentence quoted above, getting agreement on the
list that it says what you meant it to see, but holding off on
spinning a revised draft until any other comments are in, and
restricting the subsequent revision to changes already discussed on
the list, otherwise we'll still be at this next year.

Pedantic nit while we're at it: while I understand your use of the
term "transport protocol" here, it's at odds with conventional use of
the term in the IETF.  You're talking about transport over multiple
versions of IP (ie, multiple protocols at layer 3, not layer 4).
Don't know whether it's worth trying to fix that while at this.

</hat>

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:18:49 -0700

</hat>

---

From: Kenji Rikitake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:40:40 +0900

I reviewed the draft (sorry I was not in Prague).  My comment which does
not duplicate the previous comments of Joe Abley, Andrew Sullivan, and
Rob Austein:

>   4.5. Multi-homing of name servers across protocol families is less
>   likely to lead to or encounter truncation, partly because multiprotocol
>   clients are more likely to speak EDNS which can use a larger response
>   size limit, and partly because the resource records (A and AAAA) are in
>   different RRsets and are therefore divisible from each other.

I think a small piece of sentence explaining why multiprotocol clients
are more likely to speak EDNS will make the whole paragraph more clear
to understand, such as by changing the part as

    ... partly because multiprotocol clients, which is required to
    handle larger RRsets such as AAAA RRs, are more likely to ...

In general, I support this document to be proceeded in next phase soon
as possible.

// Kenji Rikitake

---

From: Kenji Rikitake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:40:40 +0900

// Kenji Rikitake