[DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-10

["Alexander Mayrhofer" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I've volunteered in Philly to do a review of the response size drafts -
i have seperated my comments into "content" and "nits" issues. 

content
-------

- The first sentence in 2.1 should probably start with "A positive
delegation response.." because a negative response could for example
also include a SOA RR in the Authority section.

- In 2.2, there is some redundancy about the importance of zone
reachability by all IP protocols in common use. There are two almost
identical sentences about this in the third paragraph (although one of
them says "should" while the other says it's "important to ensure"). I
suggest removing one of those sentences.

- In 2.3, i'd suggest changing the first sentence of the last paragraph
into "If any 'necessary' content cannot be fit... " instead of " .. is
not able to fill in.." - at least to me that would be more clear.

- I wonder whether 2.3 should include some text suggesting that the
preference of A vs. AAAA records could also depend on the transport
protocol over which the query was received? At first glance, it would
make more sense to prefer AAAA records in the additional section if the
query itself was received via IPv6, and prefer A records if the query
wFrom [e-mail]  Wed Mar 19 07:44:57 2008
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01AE128C5A1;
	Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.536
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id qwfCa+WOgiIw; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0A43A6B9F;
	Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D3F328C1CB
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id AUPbpTdpUAOA for <[e-mail]>;
	Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sbg.nic.at (mail.sbg.nic.at [192.174.68.200])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFCA128C48C
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost [127.0.0.1] by mail.sbg.nic.at with XWall v3.42 ;
	Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:42:24 +0100
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:42:24 +0100
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-10
thread-index: AciJz3Icvz5MUL+sSDqieTE3PB2+lA==
From: "Alexander Mayrhofer" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-10
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]


Hi,

I've volunteered in Philly to do a review of the response size drafts -
i have seperated my comments into "content" and "nits" issues. 

content
-------

- The first sentence in 2.1 should probably start with "A positive
delegation response.." because a negative response could for example
also include a SOA RR in the Authority section.

- In 2.2, there is some redundancy about the importance of zone
reachability by all IP protocols in common use. There are two almost
identical sentences about this in the third paragraph (although one of
them says "should" while the other says it's "important to ensure"). I
suggest removing one of those sentences.

- In 2.3, i'd suggest changing the first sentence of the last paragraph
into "If any 'necessary' content cannot be fit... " instead of " .. is
not able to fill in.." - at least to me that would be more clear.

- I wonder whether 2.3 should include some text suggesting that the
preference of A vs. AAAA records could also depend on the transport
protocol over which the query was received? At first glance, it would
make more sense to prefer AAAA records in the additional section if the
query itself was received via IPv6, and prefer A records if the query
was received over IPv4? I haven't looked into more detail regarding
this, though.

- I have really a hard time understanding the last paragraph of Section
4. It might be me, but i can't grasp what this paragraph intends to say.


Nits
----

the online idnits checker reports a few issues - it complains about the
GTLD-SERVERS and ROOT-SERVERS domains, and the associated IP addresses.
However, i guess that it would not make much sense to change those
"special" domain names into example.com (i think it is clear from the
purpose of the document, too)

I found a couple of acronyms that are neither on the RFC editors "well
known" list nor expanded / referenced anywhere in the document. Those
include "EDNS", "RRset", "CNAME", "DNAME", "RRs".

I'm missing a ToC (although i know it's not required, i'd appreciate
one).

Section 1 (Introduction) contains just one subsection (1.1 Introduction
and Overview). I suggest removing the sub-section title, and probably
changing the Title of section one into "Introduction and Overview", if
desired.


that's all i found --

cheers

Alex
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


as received over IPv4? I haven't looked into more detail regarding
this, though.

- I have really a hard time understanding the last paragraph of Section
4. It might be me, but i can't grasp what this paragraph intends to say.


Nits
----

the online idnits checker reports a few issues - it complains about the
GTLD-SERVERS and ROOT-SERVERS domains, and the associated IP addresses.
However, i guess that it would not make much sense to change those
"special" domain names into example.com (i think it is clear from the
purpose of the document, too)

I found a couple of acronyms that are neither on the RFC editors "well
known" list nor expanded / referenced anywhere in the document. Those
include "EDNS", "RRset", "CNAME", "DNAME", "RRs".

I'm missing a ToC (although i know it's not required, i'd appreciate
one).

Section 1 (Introduction) contains just one subsection (1.1 Introduction
and Overview). I suggest removing the sub-section title, and probably
changing the Title of section one into "Introduction and Overview", if
desired.


that's all i found --

cheers

Alex
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop