Re: [DNSOP] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with COMMENT)

[Sara Dickinson <[e-mail]>]

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 08:21, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> -- Section 5 --
> 
>   This requirement is hereby relaxed.  Stub resolvers and recursive
>   resolvers MAY elect to send either TCP or UDP queries depending on
>   local operational reasons.  TCP MAY be used before sending any UDP
>   queries.  If it already has an open TCP connection to the server it
>   SHOULD reuse this connection.  In essence, TCP ought to be considered
>   a valid alternative transport to UDP, not purely a fallback option.
> 
> The "If it already has" in the fourth sentence was clear in the original
> 
> 5966 text, but doesn't work here: there's no clear antecedent to "it".  
> Please make it "If the resolver already has”.

Ack.

> 
> In the last sentence, I think we should say "not purely a retry option,"
> 
> as this isn't really "fallback" in the sense we usually use the term.

OK.

> 
> -- Section 6.1.1 --
> 
>   However it
>   is common practice for clients to close the TCP connection after
>   sending a single request
> 
> In the light of edns-tcp-keepalive, do we really want to say this?  It's
> 
> true, but it sounds like a recommendation.  Maybe we might say something
> 
> like, "Clients often close the TCP connection after sending a single 
> request, but see [draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive]." ?

Well, this ‘Current Practices” section was trying to document what happens today, and to my knowledge keepalive isn’t implemented in any production software yet. We do reference the keepalive draft in the ‘Recommendations: Idle Timeouts” section though.

Perhaps we could change this to “However, at the time of writing it is common practice...” ?

Sara.