Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Fri, 12 May 2017 06:45:52 -0500,
John Kristoff <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > I've read draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-02.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to read, review, and comment on it!
>
> > I think RFC7766 already pretty clearly states TCP is a MUST.
>
> IETF RFC 7766 does very explicitly declare TCP is a MUST in the context
> of DNS implementation.  It is also very explicit about not declaring
> this to be so from an operational standpoint, although with a strong
> warning about the consequences.  The last paragraph is Section 1 in that
> document is the operative text.  It was that in addition to my own
> operational and teaching experience I felt made this draft necessary. I
> tried to make this case at the meeting in Chicago and elsewhere that
> this is an important distinction that matters.  I can try to make this
> case more compelling and convincing in the text.

I understand this draft tries to focus on an operational standpoint.
It states the intent pretty clearly.  It's just that I wasn't
convinced about the need to publish a separate RFC for that purpose
with all the overhead.  But, if a new version provides more compelling
arguments about the need it might change my mind.  And, in any case, I
wouldn't be surprised if others see stronger need for a separate
operational document - it can be quite subjective.  That's why I said
I wouldn't be (necessarily) opposed to
>
> >   I'm not sure if DDNS update bolsters the need for TCP.
> [...]
> >   And I don't see any new trend that changes this practice.
>
> I see Tony has chimed on this so I'll simply add that the goal of
> Section 2 was not necessarily intended to make or bolster the modern
> argument for carrying DNS over TCP.  In fact, the purpose was to help
> show how it is difficult to conclude one way or another whether carrying
> DNS over TCP is an operational requirement or not. I can make this
> objective more explicit at the beginning of that section.

Regarding this, see my followup response to Tony.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya