[DNSOP] review of draft-dickinson-dnsop-5966-bis-00.txt
Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Sat, 15 November 2014 21:48 UTC
Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 655C91A8890 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 13:48:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.146
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bJz3UNfJ1tPq for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 13:48:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FF9B1A885F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 13:48:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id sAFLmqIt035279 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:48:52 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201411152148.sAFLmqIt035279@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:48:52 +0100
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/b5oN3zobjbk1uUHaHVOLA3PR9kM
Subject: [DNSOP] review of draft-dickinson-dnsop-5966-bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 21:48:58 -0000
Some comments: - 4 page 5: "It (TCP) SHOULD NOT be used only for zone transfers and as a fallback." this SHOULD NOT is very hard to implement without dubious interpretations (i.e., the idea is right but the current wording could lead to unexpected/unwanted results). - 5 page 4: "both clients and servers SHOULD support connection reuse" this should not be applied to servers as they MUST use the same connection than queries are received (cf last statement of 4 page 5). IMHO this is mainly a wording issue. - 5 page 6: the last statement of RFC 5966 was removed, perhaps because it could be applied to the TCP fast open? - 5 page 5-6: a problem is not covered: what a server should do when a client closes the TCP connection before pending responses are sent. I.e., what to specify for the server side of lack of connection signaling? Note the new 6 page 5 makes this more likely. - 6 page 5: either the should for parallel processing has to be upper case or another word has to be used. Note the new 7 uses a RECOMMENDED key word for a statement including this. - 8 page 7: IMHO 8 (TCP Fast Open) should be dropped or moved. - 9 page 7: please move this section (summary of pros and cons) in an appendix as it is clearly not normative. - 11 page 9: I am repeating what I said at the mic: if we don't allow servers to close TCP connections with any timeout, including 0 seconds, we'll open servers supporting TCP (so all servers :-) to easy DoS attacks. Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
- [DNSOP] review of draft-dickinson-dnsop-5966-bis-… Francis Dupont