[DNSOP] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with COMMENT)

["Barry Leiba" <[e-mail]>]

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Section 5 --

   This requirement is hereby relaxed.  Stub resolvers and recursive
   resolvers MAY elect to send either TCP or UDP queries depending on
   local operational reasons.  TCP MAY be used before sending any UDP
   queries.  If it already has an open TCP connection to the server it
   SHOULD reuse this connection.  In essence, TCP ought to be considered
   a valid alternative transport to UDP, not purely a fallback option.

The "If it already has" in the fourth sentence was clear in the original

5966 text, but doesn't work here: there's no clear antecedent to "it".  
Please make it "If the resolver already has".

In the last sentence, I think we should say "not purely a retry option,"

as this isn't really "fallback" in the sense we usually use the term.

-- Section 6.1.1 --

   However it
   is common practice for clients to close the TCP connection after
   sending a single request

In the light of edns-tcp-keepalive, do we really want to say this?  It's

true, but it sounds like a recommendation.  Maybe we might say something

like, "Clients often close the TCP connection after sending a single 
request, but see [draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive]." ?