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

From: "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 06:54:34 -0800

Brian Haberman 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

While I am not a fan of standards-track requirements documents, I
understand the history of 5966 and support the publication of this
document. I do have a couple of comments for your consideration.

1. Is it worth mentioning in the Intro that another drive towards more
TCP-based DNS exchanges may be the desire to re-use existing security
associations for DNS privacy solutions?

2. Is there a reference to back up the statement "However, transport of
UDP packets that exceed the size of the path  MTU causes IP packet
fragmentation, which has been found to be unreliable in many
circumstances."? It would be good to be able to gauge just how unreliable
this issue has become.

3. I agree with Martin's suggested re-wording in Section 8.

---

From: sara <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:40:35 +0000

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 14:54, Brian Haberman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

We could add an informational reference to draft-ietf-dprive-dns-over-tls.

> circumstances."? It would be good to be able to gauge just how unreliable

After some searching I’m not sure there is a definitive, recent one. Possibilities are:

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ripe-atlas-packet-size-matters <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ripe-atlas-packet-size-matters>

which references the older: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=205447.205456 <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=205447.205456>

And there is also some discussion of this in SSAC035 / RFC 5625.

> 3. I agree with Martin's suggested re-wording in Section 8.

Agreed. 

Sara