[DNSOP] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation-16: Discuss

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-avoid-fragmentation/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please address the point raised by Barry Leiba in his ARTART review.


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

I support Rob Wilton's DISCUSS position.  Piling on a bit, in reference to:

   R6.  UDP requestors SHOULD limit the requestor's maximum UDP payload
   size to the RECOMMENDED size of 1400 or a smaller size.

I think the "RECOMMENDED" here is just carrying forward a "RECOMMENDED" from
someplace else.  If that's correct, I suggest changing it to "recommended" or,
if you want to be more precise, "... to the size recommended by RFCXXXX of 1400
or smaller."  Now it's clear what the SHOULD is referencing, and you don't own
the RECOMMENDED part here.

I suggest defining "EMSGSIZE" in Section 2 to be the UNIX error code of the
same name.  Otherwise, we encounter it in Section 3.1 in a way that could mean
it's an error code (which is how I think you intend it) or as a symbolic name
for the path MTU size.

Forwarded comments from Orie Steele, incoming ART Area Director:

"Recommendations for zone operators and DNS server operators"

* Define "large / small" better.

"Protocol compliance considerations"

* Would be nice to see reporting recommendations, perhaps that make the failure
an internal cost for the failing component?... would not want a repeat of dmarc
though.