Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Fri, 12 May 2017 11:35:26 +0100,
Tony Finch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >   I'm not sure if DDNS update bolsters the need for TCP.  In
> >   my understanding DDNS update exchanges are largely done over UDP
> >   today (e.g., ISC's nsupdate utility uses UDP by default):
>
> Well, that depends on the transaction size :-) My servers fairly
> frequently handle updates containing hundreds or records.
>
> And `nsupdate` basically assumes that TCP is available - it doesn't give
> the caller a way to find out what the server's maximum update size is.
> (Similarly, my `nsupdate` wrapper `nsdiff` also assumes transactions can
> be up to 64KB in size.)
>
> So I think you'll be sad if you try to deploy an UPDATE server without TCP.

I didn't make that comment to say we can deploy DDNS without TCP.
Citing the draft text again:

   At least two new, widely anticipated developments were set to elevate
   the need for DNS over TCP transactions.  The first was dynamic
   updates defined in [RFC2136] and the second was <not about DDNS>.  The
   former suggested "requestors who require an accurate response code
   must use TCP", while the later <not about DDNS>

This read to me that DDNS elevates the need for DNS over TCP as
RFC2136 suggests to use TCP for an accurate response code (because TCP
is reliable but UDP isn't) and requestors are actually following that
suggestion.

My comment was to point out that this is probably not the case in
today's common practice: I suspect many requestors don't too much
worry about this particular point and don't really use TCP at least
for that reason by overriding utilities' default.  Of course, in some
deployments the transaction size can be quite large and require TCP.
I don't know how common such a deployment is, but regardless of that,
I don't think the current draft text tries to say that.  If the actual
intent is that large DDNS transactions can require TCP, it should
simply say so (it doesn't have to cite the above suggestion of
RFC2136; it's even a confusing distraction in that sense).  And, to
that end, it's not even specific to DDNS.  Even a normal query
response can be too large to fit in a UDP message even with EDNS(0).

So, in summary, I basically try to say I don't see anything special
about DDNS here.

Anyway, this is a pretty minor technical detail.  I don't think it
affects the overall quality of the draft very much.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya