Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-05: (with COMMENT)

sara <sara@sinodun.com> Thu, 07 January 2016 11:34 UTC

Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FCB79C7A-B494-4826-B595-9F8C0D289021"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: sara <sara@sinodun.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160106200805.16353.12667.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 11:34:24 +0000
Message-Id: <18EC9368-A559-4E40-984B-8145AABD56DC@sinodun.com>
References: <20160106200805.16353.12667.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/S-Sr9BWso_VfaZZHxzGXJ1mM-2Q>
Cc: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-05: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 20:08, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-05: No Objection
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> - 3.2.2:
> 
> I think it would be helpful to give some more guidance about the
> “timeout” period. That is, when does it start, does it reset when a new
> query is sent, etc? This is somewhat implied by the term “idle”, but it
> would be better to be explicit.

The -05 version of this draft now normatively references draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis and the Terminology section there defines an “Idle DNS-over-TCP session”. But I agree it would help if we add a specific terminology reference to that section early in this document. 

> 
> -3.3.2:
> I understand from later in the draft that the  OPT RR in a query does not
> necessarily need to have include edns-tcp-keepalive for the server to
> include it in the response.  A careless reader might easily miss that
> distinction. It would be helpful to emphasize it here.

Suggest:

"A DNS server that receives a query sent using TCP transport that
   includes an EDNS0 OPT RR (with or without the edns-tcp-keepalive 
   option) MAY include the edns-tcp-keepalive option in the
   response to signal the expected idle timeout on a connection. "

> 
> === Editorial===
> - Abstract:
> The abstract is rather long. The first paragraph might be better left to
> the introduction section.

I think that the first version of this draft appeared before 5966bis, so giving this level of background was useful/necessary. We can reconsider this though. 

> 
> - 1:
> The introduction sort of buries the lede. The idea that clients and
> servers need to manage idle connections is not mentioned until paragraphs
> 8 and 9. That's the whole point of the document.

Again, probably for historical reasons. I wonder if moving paragraph 8 to be paragraph 2 would help?

Sara.

[DNSOP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell
Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-… sara
Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-… Ben Campbell