Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-tcp-requirements

"Wessels, Duane" <dwessels@verisign.com> Fri, 23 April 2021 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <dwessels@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 391DC3A1814 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=verisign.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4O8Uqysytbr for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.verisign.com (mail2.verisign.com [72.13.63.31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 934FD3A180F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=verisign.com; l=8378; q=dns/txt; s=VRSN; t=1619199374; h=from:to:cc:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version:subject; bh=p/ru5WaKz4IShqiRXe7gbFMXUT5A0sYKJf0aBdqou9k=; b=da7TG8WS8gbU5ykxjdEomaNHSLP9JTDgWTxgulTw1gYLicLsgDzXUakK KQ1upxciklR1zZGUs+grtzb/9ehvLoEgbPgr80hHjSb+9I0Mu8feS+Pzg z80ca3BX5MQFUqZQQ6sHka3PYYvsmOKi5LkNUh92C+Z5LpnFtqFmLk8QW YUobxRjkQx0/IzpzfPLtBNyPkRoQF7+x9I7/033LDyo2GmPL6HztCRrRu B2YvVNChAViLiI5W7H4KM6z1lLveR1tXo0KtCXK3ON2XeCxxIvPUF7cFX 49EZzPm/iYN6BO3TjQKbG+ulHQKXDAAhQdIpNN7IfbuBqisM+IavJyIcv A==;
IronPort-SDR: tNvGe6q3N8089v3stdJOnD2KG2V00MLonfI2UMWzqS0Pk4AO1gZD5ksm5desndGHVu5KMCN0JC 5/PwZxpPawqEWETBEu/yCEMeR/I/lrSqY69KW68LJuyUxKsr15RuzojT8Xi/+cnGWux7JbPrbV sf/0fbCABafyAX97eWszqGoI8R11U8bLN7lomUsTkcORSJsfXKOe8P7TNwrW3EPyYQq+jM1/gz DZtZ+t7T1yf+uuWXxVlBgfjSNwqrrw3xg6+MKDCE8onSRJtlm1h8BVA3D+VVl+j0PYPOtWGmFY QpY=
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:cTfJWq7dKpROQMAVSwPXwF/XdLJzesId70hD6mlaTxtJfsuE0/ 20lPMA2hPuzBoXUncsmdePUZPwJE/035hz/IUXIPOeTBDr0VHYTr1KwIP+z1TbexHW2fVa0c 5bHZRWLP3VIRxEgd3h4A++euxO/PC9/KqlhfjTwh5WJGlXQpt95AR0ABvzKDwUeCB6A/MCda a0145oqz2tYnwLYsn+LWltZYT+juyOsJ79exYJC1oE5Bnmt1mVwY+/NxSDxB8RX3d03LE4/Q H+/jDR/Km5rP2h8BPa2lLS65g+orDc9uc=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.82,246,1613433600"; d="p7s'?scan'208"; a="6391024"
Received: from BRN1WNEX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (10.173.153.48) by BRN1WNEX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (10.173.153.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2242.4; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:36:12 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([fe80::a89b:32d6:b967:337d]) by BRN1WNEX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([fe80::a89b:32d6:b967:337d%4]) with mapi id 15.01.2242.008; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:36:12 -0400
From: "Wessels, Duane" <dwessels@verisign.com>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
CC: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-tcp-requirements
Thread-Index: AQHXOGcnNKFUEjCTNUuq6Wx1I5QZHw==
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 17:36:12 +0000
Message-ID: <5A817878-B8B2-4221-A549-C3D29636C924@verisign.com>
References: <93D82731-7B33-4E39-8DEF-FF6C14803191@gmail.com> <CAF4+nEHmbNW=o4DrtNB1-ZeXbnS5czZp1On91cWzxgmL9qjtOA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEHmbNW=o4DrtNB1-ZeXbnS5czZp1On91cWzxgmL9qjtOA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
x-originating-ip: [10.170.148.18]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_17C1355F-3AFC-4BF4-BA45-D2A9A7B862B5"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0Beo1JAKboagBY4gtklCuaVXnvw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-tcp-requirements
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 17:36:19 -0000


> On Apr 22, 2021, at 11:50 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is a good document and I support publication.
> 
> However, I do have some comments. I scanned the Last Call comments by
> others, and they mostly seem like improvements, but some of my
> comments below may duplicate others for which I apologize in advance.
> 
> 
> Section 3, last paragraph: Cut out wishy-washy superfluous words. Be bold!
> OLD
> vice-versa.  However, it is the aim of this document to argue that
> BETTER
> vice-versa.  However, this document argues that
> BEST
> vice-versa.  However,

Done!

> 
> 
> Although Cookies are mentioned in this draft with a reference to the
> RFC 7873, it would be good to work in the point that the Cookies RFC
> recommends use of TCP whenever Cookies are not available as a way to
> get some of the benefits of Cookies. Thus, if I remember correctly,
> someone following that RFC would use Cookies or, when they are not
> available, TCP.

The appendix entry for RFC 7873 said:

    [RFC 7873] mentions DNS over TCP as a reasonable fallback mechanism when DNS Cookies
    are not available.

The phrase "reasonable fallback" doesn't sit quite right with me so I changed it to
"...as an alternative mechanism...".  Does that work for you or were you suggesting
that this point be made in the body of the document rather than only in the appendix?



> 
> Section 9, last paragraph: Don't be so negative :-)
> "not unlike" -> "similar to"

Done.

> 
> 
> Make the name of Section 2 a bit more explicit, something like
> "History of DNS over TCP"

Yes, done.


> 
> 
> Section 1.1: Update as per RFC 8174.

Done.

> 
> 
> Lots of references are good but I find it disturbing that all
> technical references are shown as Informational. I think a lot of them
> should be moved to Normative.

I wondered about that as well.  I moved many of the standards track RFCs to the normative section.  I will highlight this change when the next version is posted and I hope someone lets us know if any of those are not appropriate there.

DW