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

"Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net> Mon, 04 January 2016 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D56161A906C; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 10:18:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.11.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160104181816.30839.63396.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 10:18:16 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/2w3-pXAK2UVWs4CmmWBK_Q47qlA>
Cc: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-04: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 18:18:17 -0000

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:


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.