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

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 05:46:09 -0800

Benoit Claise 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I was slightly surprised by "implementation requirements" in the title.
If we write a RFC, we hopefully hope/require future implementations,
right?
I understand the willingness to change as little text as possible
compared RFC5966, but I would welcome the following update:

OLD:

          DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements
                      draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05

Abstract

   This document specifies the requirement for support of TCP as a
   transport protocol for DNS implementations and provides guidelines
   towards DNS-over-TCP performance on par with that of DNS-over-UDP.
   This document obsoletes RFC5966 and therefore updates RFC1035 and
   RFC1123.

NEW:

          DNS Transport over TCP
                      draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05

Abstract

   This document specifies TCP as a
   transport protocol for DNS implementations and provides guidelines
   towards DNS-over-TCP performance on par with that of DNS-over-UDP.
   This document obsoletes RFC5966 and therefore updates RFC1035 and
   RFC1123.

---

From: Ray Bellis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:49:16 +0000

The rationale for the original text in RFC 5966 was that whilst how to
use TCP was already *specified*, it was often taken as not *required to
implement*.

IMHO, your proposed alternate text loses that distinction.

kind regards,

Ray

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 16:32:01 +0100

Ray,

I understand this.
My point is that, at some point in time, history doesn't matter any longer.

Regards, Benoit
> .

---

From: sara <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:03:19 +0000

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 15:32, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Ray,
> 
> I understand this.

Hi, 

FWIIW I’m with Ray on this one - I think it is important to retain the full title. 

I think the change of SHOULD to MUST for TCP implementation is still significant enough today to warrant this. And IMHO the new requirements in this version of the document also warrant that label. 

Sara.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:24:07 +0100

Sara and Ray,

I made my point.
If you guys feel strongly about that, fine with me. It's a COMMENT after 
all.

Regards, Benoit