Re: [DNSOP] Martin Stiemerling's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with COMMENT)

[Sara Dickinson <[e-mail]>]

> On 5 Jan 2016, at 22:11, Martin Stiemerling <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> One comment and request for clarification:
> 
> In the first paragraph of Section 8:
> "   DNS clients and servers SHOULD pass the two-octet length field, and
>   the message described by that length field, to the TCP layer at the
>   same time (e.g., in a single "write" system call) to make it more
>   likely that all the data will be transmitted in a single TCP segment.
>   This is both for reasons of efficiency and to avoid problems due to
>   some DNS server implementations behaving undesirably when processing
>   TCP segments (due to a lack of clarity in previous standards).  For
>   example, some DNS server implementations might abort a TCP session if
>   the first TCP segment does not contain both the length field and the
>   entire message.
> "
> 
> This paragraphs says that DNS servers process segments. This is slightly
> inaccurate, at least under the assumption that DNS clients and servers
> are user land processes. 
> Such a user land process does not see segments but data being read or
> written to the sockets. And such data might be one or multiple segments
> concatenated. 
> 
> I do understand the text, but I would like to propose a change (though
> the proposed text might not be perfect):
> 
>   This is both for reasons of efficiency and to avoid problems due to
>   some DNS server implementations behaving undesirably when reading
>   data from TCP  (due to a lack of clarity in previous standards).  For
>   example, some DNS server implementations might abort a TCP session if
>   the first data part read from TCP does not contain both the length
> field and the
>   entire message.

Yes, this is better. To be consistent with the rest of the wording in that section, I would propose minor tweaks:

 “This is both for reasons of efficiency and to avoid problems due to
  some DNS server implementations behaving undesirably when reading
  data from the TCP layer (due to a lack of clarity in previous standards).  For
  example, some DNS server implementations might abort a TCP session if
  the first “read" from the TCP layer does not contain both the length
  field and the entire message."

WDYT?

Sara.