Subject: [DNSOP] Martin Stiemerling's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Martin Stiemerling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 14:11:33 -0800

Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

One comment and request for clarification:

In the first paragraph of Section 8:
"   DNS clients and servers SHOULD pass the two-octet length field, and
   the message described by that length field, to the TCP layer at the
   same time (e.g., in a single "write" system call) to make it more
   likely that all the data will be transmitted in a single TCP segment.
   This is both for reasons of efficiency and to avoid problems due to
   some DNS server implementations behaving undesirably when processing
   TCP segments (due to a lack of clarity in previous standards).  For
   example, some DNS server implementations might abort a TCP session if
   the first TCP segment does not contain both the length field and the
   entire message.
"

This paragraphs says that DNS servers process segments. This is slightly
inaccurate, at least under the assumption that DNS clients and servers
are user land processes. 
Such a user land process does not see segments but data being read or
written to the sockets. And such data might be one or multiple segments
concatenated. 

I do understand the text, but I would like to propose a change (though
the proposed text might not be perfect):

   This is both for reasons of efficiency and to avoid problems due to
   some DNS server implementations behaving undesirably when reading
   data from TCP  (due to a lack of clarity in previous standards).  For
   example, some DNS server implementations might abort a TCP session if
   the first data part read from TCP does not contain both the length
field and the
   entire message.

---

From: Sara Dickinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:16:51 +0000

> On 5 Jan 2016, at 22:11, Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Yes, this is better. To be consistent with the rest of the wording in that section, I would propose minor tweaks:

 “This is both for reasons of efficiency and to avoid problems due to
  some DNS server implementations behaving undesirably when reading
  data from the TCP layer (due to a lack of clarity in previous standards).  For
  example, some DNS server implementations might abort a TCP session if
  the first “read" from the TCP layer does not contain both the length
  field and the entire message."

WDYT?

Sara.

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 22:40:54 +0100

Hi Sara,

>    field and the entire message."

This WFM!

Thanks,

   Martin