Subject: [DNSOP] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:21:14 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: No Objection

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Section 5 --

   This requirement is hereby relaxed.  Stub resolvers and recursive
   resolvers MAY elect to send either TCP or UDP queries depending on
   local operational reasons.  TCP MAY be used before sending any UDP
   queries.  If it already has an open TCP connection to the server it
   SHOULD reuse this connection.  In essence, TCP ought to be considered
   a valid alternative transport to UDP, not purely a fallback option.

The "If it already has" in the fourth sentence was clear in the original

5966 text, but doesn't work here: there's no clear antecedent to "it".  
Please make it "If the resolver already has".

In the last sentence, I think we should say "not purely a retry option,"

as this isn't really "fallback" in the sense we usually use the term.

-- Section 6.1.1 --

   However it
   is common practice for clients to close the TCP connection after
   sending a single request

In the light of edns-tcp-keepalive, do we really want to say this?  It's

true, but it sounds like a recommendation.  Maybe we might say something

like, "Clients often close the TCP connection after sending a single 
request, but see [draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive]." ?

---

From: Sara Dickinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:34:28 +0000

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 08:21, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> -- Section 5 --
> 
> Please make it "If the resolver already has”.

Ack.

> as this isn't really "fallback" in the sense we usually use the term.

OK.

> request, but see [draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive]." ?

Well, this ‘Current Practices” section was trying to document what happens today, and to my knowledge keepalive isn’t implemented in any production software yet. We do reference the keepalive draft in the ‘Recommendations: Idle Timeouts” section though.

Perhaps we could change this to “However, at the time of writing it is common practice...” ?

Sara.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 21:42:37 +0800

> Well, this ‘Current Practices” section was trying to document what happens
> today, and to my knowledge keepalive isn’t implemented in any production
> software yet. We do reference the keepalive draft in the ‘Recommendations:
> Idle Timeouts” section though.
>

That works for me -- it also makes it clear that it's not a
recommendation.  Thanks!

Barry