[DNSOP] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-04: (with DISCUSS)

["Brian Haberman" <[e-mail]>]

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-04: Discuss

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-edns-tcp-keepalive/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support the publication of this document, but I have a point I want to
discuss to help with the clarity of the spec.

Section 3.2.1 says that clients send this option with the first query
sent on a TCP connection and Section 3.2.2 says it should honor the
timeout provided by the server and close the socket when appropriate.
What is not discussed is how the client should manage the timer with
respect to the reception of multiple query responses that may, or may
not, include edns-tcp-keepalive option. Section 3.3.2 says the server MAY
send the option, so it is up to the server to decide when to include the
option and the corresponding timeout value. Should the client's timer
simply reflect the value sent in the latest response? The smallest
remaining time?

I think a few sentences on client timer management would be beneficial.