Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-04.txt> (DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements) to Internet Standard

Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org> Mon, 23 November 2015 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <muks@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCDE01B3320 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 12:01:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w4_hrtq0a3xk for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 12:01:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.banu.com (mail.banu.com [46.4.129.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 249751B333E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 12:01:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jurassic.l0.malgudi.org (unknown [115.118.222.221]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.banu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 90DD42BA0E27; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:01:20 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 01:31:17 +0530
From: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org>
To: "Wessels, Duane" <dwessels@verisign.com>
Message-ID: <20151123200117.GA4613@jurassic.l0.malgudi.org>
References: <20151123135808.2730.32721.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20151123160748.GA3031@jurassic.l0.malgudi.org> <15C921FB-043B-40FA-800E-311D52136A20@verisign.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <15C921FB-043B-40FA-800E-311D52136A20@verisign.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/76mfQadN_kx3Ia4OYT20wXrcIA4>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-04.txt> (DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements) to Internet Standard
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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, 23 Nov 2015 20:01:53 -0000

Hi Duane

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 07:42:16PM +0000, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> The document authors have discussed this and we feel the addition of this
> paragraph in section 7 addresses the issue that you've raised:
> 
>    Note that AXFR [RFC5936] and IXFR [RFC1995] have the property that
>    one query message might result in multiple response messages.
>    Therefore, those protocols have their own specific ordering
>    requirements.
> 
> Look reasonable?

It does, but I suggest (as this is published after RFC5936 and RFC1995)
that the draft explicitly state that these messages corresponding to a
transfer are not reordered, and also whether they could be multiplexed
with other messages.

		Mukund