Re: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sara,

On 07/01/16 10:54, sara wrote:
> 
>> On 6 Jan 2016, at 21:58, Stephen Farrell
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hiya,
>>> 
>>> Speaking for myself I don’t see this as the solution to managing
>>> DTLS sessions, I think that would be better handled with a TLS
>>> extension.
>> 
>> Yes, that's the obvious answer, and a not bad answer. Did the dnsop
>> WG (or dprive) consider the issue already?
> 
> It is a good question, but it wan't explicitly discussed AFAIK.

Okey-dokey, I'll ask Joel how he prefers to handle this on the
call today and go with whatever he recommends.

> 
>>>> - 3.3.2:
>> 
>> Oops:-) Typo there sorry, the one that puzzled me is at the end of
>> 3.2.2 where it says " This holds true even if a previous 
>> edns-keepalive-option exchange occurred on the existing TCP 
>> connection."
> 
> Ah, this is to do with the semantics of EDNS0 exchanges. It just
> clarifies that if the server chooses not to send the option in this
> scenario it is effectively equivalent to the server sending a 0
> timeout (indicating it does not want to continue with keepalive) even
> it if previously indicated it supported it.

Ah grand, I get it now. I think the way you've explained it above
is clearer for me anyway, so maybe consider saying it that way if
you do any more changes.

Cheers,
S.

> 
> Sara.
>