Re: [DNSOP] Martin Stiemerling's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with COMMENT)

Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 06 January 2016 21:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC1D1A1A67; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:41:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 0S44ZxGwQ9li; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:40:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com (mail-wm0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D7E41A1A6E; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:40:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id l65so74753145wmf.1; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:40:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AVd/N72ySFMGE0wfwyZvieZekGq3C0cssql38zWU4SA=; b=KAXCTre+qiojN2CXuFfDf11+yiDEqi1XaVx6FCa0ERWJZDiJj6WG8Zn6li9MsUVx+a /oVsBiQaB1FEkpLHgj6o8NljifhxpjbahZMvHoHpggFx2YzMvuvYgm6HPqixOuTmqFoM GpNBIxMo4Dl/Jg+rEdXOsd8BIHLe+jPb7dGk6mNSGnET/AyrsXghOppMvP7HPaPv+YAJ TnKNTxf74KmDrifCxBqUY4DuZMYjcP8FFn3sp6lTCsP2Xb8dk4hpH3JVsCa5Jvnv89x+ 1w5qV4dtMmAKnuG6L8LfA8gcHzgR+exdnbW8ymZkmdfX0b6fL9R8E6taJ52Pog0E2SrO xWMg==
X-Received: by 10.28.111.18 with SMTP id k18mr11787512wmc.86.1452116457668; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:40:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Martins-MacBook-Pro-2.fritz.box ([2001:1a80:280c:4600:ad6f:2afb:9506:2f46]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id r10sm73440378wjz.24.2016.01.06.13.40.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:40:56 -0800 (PST)
To: Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>
References: <20160105221133.20947.98942.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3C18C03A-ACCB-42B7-8351-C6539DACB278@sinodun.com>
From: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <568D89E6.9070201@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 22:40:54 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3C18C03A-ACCB-42B7-8351-C6539DACB278@sinodun.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/12T3-18nA2cvT1tOWaGjMWiMsj4>
Cc: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Martin Stiemerling's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 21:41:00 -0000

Hi Sara,

Am 06.01.16 um 13:16 schrieb Sara Dickinson:
>
>> On 5 Jan 2016, at 22:11, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> One comment and request for clarification:
>>
>> In the first paragraph of Section 8:
>> "   DNS clients and servers SHOULD pass the two-octet length field, and
>>    the message described by that length field, to the TCP layer at the
>>    same time (e.g., in a single "write" system call) to make it more
>>    likely that all the data will be transmitted in a single TCP segment.
>>    This is both for reasons of efficiency and to avoid problems due to
>>    some DNS server implementations behaving undesirably when processing
>>    TCP segments (due to a lack of clarity in previous standards).  For
>>    example, some DNS server implementations might abort a TCP session if
>>    the first TCP segment does not contain both the length field and the
>>    entire message.
>> "
>>
>> This paragraphs says that DNS servers process segments. This is slightly
>> inaccurate, at least under the assumption that DNS clients and servers
>> are user land processes.
>> Such a user land process does not see segments but data being read or
>> written to the sockets. And such data might be one or multiple segments
>> concatenated.
>>
>> I do understand the text, but I would like to propose a change (though
>> the proposed text might not be perfect):
>>
>>    This is both for reasons of efficiency and to avoid problems due to
>>    some DNS server implementations behaving undesirably when reading
>>    data from TCP  (due to a lack of clarity in previous standards).  For
>>    example, some DNS server implementations might abort a TCP session if
>>    the first data part read from TCP does not contain both the length
>> field and the
>>    entire message.
>
> Yes, this is better. To be consistent with the rest of the wording in that section, I would propose minor tweaks:
>
>   “This is both for reasons of efficiency and to avoid problems due to
>    some DNS server implementations behaving undesirably when reading
>    data from the TCP layer (due to a lack of clarity in previous standards).  For
>    example, some DNS server implementations might abort a TCP session if
>    the first “read" from the TCP layer does not contain both the length
>    field and the entire message."
>
> WDYT?

This WFM!

Thanks,

   Martin