Subject: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 12:08:05 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-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-edns-tcp-keepalive/

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

- 3.2.2:

I think it would be helpful to give some more guidance about the
“timeout” period. That is, when does it start, does it reset when a new
query is sent, etc? This is somewhat implied by the term “idle”, but it
would be better to be explicit.

-3.3.2:
I understand from later in the draft that the  OPT RR in a query does not
necessarily need to have include edns-tcp-keepalive for the server to
include it in the response.  A careless reader might easily miss that
distinction. It would be helpful to emphasize it here.

=== Editorial===
- Abstract:
The abstract is rather long. The first paragraph might be better left to
the introduction section.

- 1:
The introduction sort of buries the lede. The idea that clients and
servers need to manage idle connections is not mentioned until paragraphs
8 and 9. That's the whole point of the document.

---

From: sara <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:34:24 +0000

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 20:08, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

The -05 version of this draft now normatively references draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis and the Terminology section there defines an “Idle DNS-over-TCP session”. But I agree it would help if we add a specific terminology reference to that section early in this document. 

> distinction. It would be helpful to emphasize it here.

Suggest:

"A DNS server that receives a query sent using TCP transport that
   includes an EDNS0 OPT RR (with or without the edns-tcp-keepalive 
   option) MAY include the edns-tcp-keepalive option in the
   response to signal the expected idle timeout on a connection. "

> the introduction section.

I think that the first version of this draft appeared before 5966bis, so giving this level of background was useful/necessary. We can reconsider this though. 

> 8 and 9. That's the whole point of the document.

Again, probably for historical reasons. I wonder if moving paragraph 8 to be paragraph 2 would help?

Sara.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 08:52:27 -0600

On 7 Jan 2016, at 5:34, sara wrote:

> The -05 version of this draft now normatively references 
> draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis and the Terminology section there defines an 
> “Idle DNS-over-TCP session”. But I agree it would help if we add a 
> specific terminology reference to that section early in this document.

5966bis defines what "idle" means, but I do not see anything that 
defines how the timeout works. It's likely I missed something.

> response to signal the expected idle timeout on a connection. "

Works for me.

> I think that the first version of this draft appeared before 5966bis, 
> so giving this level of background was useful/necessary. We can 
> reconsider this though.

It's not a huge deal either way.

> to be paragraph 2 would help?

I think it might.