Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 10:53:57AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > > We specifically didn’t want to reference DoH since HTTP is unsuitable
> > for long lived connections and DSO wouldn’t apply here. We didn’t want to
> > imply that DoH was suitable by referencing it.
> >
> > Hmm.  I think DoH is clearly a non-UDP transport for DNS, and it is hard to
> > argue that it is not being specified.  My parenthetical suggestion was
> > probably a bit unclear -- I was proposing to add DNS over HTTP to the list
> > in the first sentence, and change the second sentence to start as "Some
> > such transports can offer persistent[...]".  Does that still seem like it
> > runs the risk of implying that DoH is suitable, to you?
> >
> 
> Rr.   Okay, I agree with you and when I went to do this, it occurred to me
> that we are being silly here—this document has no applicability section.
>  Adding one will really clean this up a lot.   So I've done that:
> 
[diff trimmed]

That does clean up quite a few things; thank you for putting in the effort
to makme the broader change!  (Do we care that we no longer talk about SRV
discovery?  I don't think I do, just wanted to check...)

> 
> > > How about:
> > >
> > > When a new TLV is defined, the specification MUST include whether the
> > DSO-TYPE can be used as the Primary TLV, used as an Additional TLV, or used
> > in either context for both requests and responses.
> >
> > That's probably better (but maybe another comma before "for both requests
> > and responses"?  OTOH, the RFC Editor has a consistent style book to
> > apply...)
> >
> 
> I updated the text to make it more generally imperative, and to be really
> explicit about the point you're making rather than just hoping the comma
> will be enough.  :)
> 
> Specifications that define new TLVs must specify whether the DSO-TYPE
> can be used as the Primary TLV, used as an Additional TLV, or used in either
> context, both in the case of requests and of responses.
> The specification for a TLV must also state whether,
> when used as the Primary (i.e., first) TLV in a DNS request message (i.e.,
> QR=0),
> that DSO message is to be acknowledged.
> If the DSO message is to be acknowledged, the specification
> must also state which TLVs, if any, are to be included in the response.
> The Primary TLV may or may not be contained in the response,
> depending on what is specified for that TLV.

The epitome of clarity :)

Thanks again,

Benjamin