[DNSOP] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-13: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-13: 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/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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Suzanne Woolf for the shepherd's write-up about the WG
consensus.

Thank you also to Ron Bonica for the shortest (1 line) but positive review for
the Internet directorate:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-13-intdir-telechat-bonica-2021-10-26/

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

I would have expected a little more about anycast DNS servers as TCP is
probably a no-go for those servers. I see only one mention of anycast in the
whole document.

-- Section 2.3 --
To be honest, I smiled when reading "For example, as of 2014, DNS over TCP" in
2021 ;-)

-- Section 2.4 --
The qualitative approach about IPv6 fragmentation makes me wonder about the
sources of this paragraph.

Still about IPv6 fragmentation, while "hence is unable to fragment and re-send
anyway" is most probably correct, the originating host should populate its Path
MTU cache for the destination. So, it is not that bad.

== NITS ==

-- Section 3 --
While I appreciate 2nd degree, I wonder whether "serious" should really be part
of "Furthermore, there has been serious research"

-- Section 4.4 --
Should the DoT acronym be used ?