Re: [DNSOP] Erik Kline's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-13: (with COMMENT)

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 1:13 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 01:09:00PM -0700, Erik Kline via Datatracker wrote:
> > Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-13: Yes
> >
> > 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
> > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > [abstract vs. S1/S3, question]
> >
> > * The abstract says:
> >
> >    "...strongly
> >    encourages the operational practice of permitting DNS messages to be
> >    carried over TCP"
> >
> >   while section 1 says:
> >
> >    "...all DNS resolvers and recursive
> >    servers MUST support and service both TCP and UDP queries"
> >
> >   and section 3 also some MUST text.
> >
> >   Should the abstract be updated to say MUST rather than just
> >   "strongly encourages", or is there a subtly in here I'm missing?
>
> "require" might be better than "MUST", on the principle that if a given
> requirement is stated in more than one place, there is risk of inadvertent
> skew between what is actually stated; such skew can cause interoperability
> failure or security vulnerabilities if different implementations use the
> differing behaviors.
>
> -Ben
>

+1 sgtm