[DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-06
"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Mon, 05 March 2018 22:57 UTC
Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E98212EACC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 14:57:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 j4G1hdgEYWuS for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 14:57:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DCBB129BBF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 14:56:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.32.60.149] (50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w25MuO08015866 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:56:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141] claimed to be [10.32.60.149]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 14:56:51 -0800
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.10r5443)
Message-ID: <BDC91C97-812E-4259-BEA1-87D0DC5388BD@vpnc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/kQmggi3OorFkktUeLrOUEu1VKTw>
Subject: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-06
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 22:57:14 -0000
This draft is much clearer about DSO unacknowledged messages, which really helps understanding the protocol. Also, thank you for switching from "octet" to "byte". :-) A few other comments: ===== In this document the term "session" is used exclusively as described above, and is in no way related to the anachronistic term "session" as used in the obsolete "seven-layer model" that shaped the design of the failed OSI protocols of the 1980s. Judgmental language seems unneeded here. Proposed replacement: In this document, the term "session" is used exclusively as described above, and is in no way related to other uses of the term "session" such as the "session layer" in the OSI model. ===== Note that for clients that implement only the DSO-TYPEs defined in this base specification, sending a DSO Keepalive TLV is the only DSO request message they have available to initiate a DSO Session. Even for clients that do implement other future DSO-TYPEs, for simplicity they MAY elect to always send an initial DSO Keepalive request message as their way of initiating a DSO Session. It is unclear whether this is meant to place a restriction on future protocols that define new DSO-TYPEs. Assuming that it is, it might be clearer to say so explicitly. Note that for clients that implement only the DSO-TYPEs defined in this base specification, sending a DSO Keepalive TLV is the only DSO request message they have available to initiate a DSO Session. Future specifications that define new DSO-TYPEs MUST NOT require that those DSO-TYPEs be used to initiate a DSO Session. That is, future specifications MUST allow sending an initial DSO Keepalive request to initiate a DSO Session. ===== The second paragraph of Section 5.6.1 give an example that is much more detailed, and possibly conflicting with the (apparently normative) table in Section 4.2.1. | 9 | NOTAUTH | Not Authoritative (TLV-dependent) | An RCODE value of NOTAUTH indicates that the server has been reconfigured and is no longer able to perform one or more of the functions currently being performed on this DSO Session because it no longer has authority over the names in question. The table entry says nothing about the server being reconfigured, nor about "no longer able" as compared to "was never able". ===== Hope this helps! --Paul Hoffman
- [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-sign… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-… Stuart Cheshire