Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis

[Sara Dickinson <[e-mail]>]

> On 14 Oct 2015, at 16:02, Ray Bellis <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 14/10/2015 15:55, Tony Finch wrote:
> 
>> Yes. Perhaps "transport tuple" is an excessively clever way of saying
>> "same connection". When I wrote that I wanted to allow independent choice
>> of query ID per connection (rather than implying a single global ID).
> 
> Hmm, §6.2.1 talks about not re-using Message ID's but that's supposed to
> be in the context of a single connection.

> Across connections the Message ID space is of course independent.

Yes, it says:

“ When sending multiple queries over a TCP connection clients MUST take
   care to avoid Message ID collisions.  In other words, they MUST NOT
   re-use the DNS Message ID of an in-flight query. "

So maybe that should actually read (to avoid any doubt):

"  When sending multiple queries over a TCP connection clients MUST take
   care to avoid Message ID collisions.  In other words, they MUST NOT
   re-use the DNS Message ID of an in-flight query on the same TCP connection. “


And then the wording for section 7 can become:

“Since pipelined responses over TCP can arrive out-of-order, clients MUST match
 responses to outstanding queries on the same TCP connection using the DNS query ID. 
 If the response contains a question section the client MUST
 match the QNAME, QCLASS and QTYPE fields.”

Sara.