Re: [dnssd] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnssd-push-20

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 12 July 2019 00:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC956120155 for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 N7gTkR5KZisQ for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EDFD12009C for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id l9so6407924qtu.6 for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=zFef4VNLqwF/7AA40P2uB2eiNiZqLBOIX9F0iyRFHO4=; b=TPo7nHD8h/KwBBeCDLxFzqe+PftabXezHtM/dDBdvPzc0tKLYdEE9qg0Rph8EgYsjr IelS55zb5w6ccBnqasi1oeiDbuUmV1go5bxQ1e+2du2Oy0GQ9g03Fl9LLfeBbG2WY0+y FkQL5KpKowFIW5Nk2JR0vK4j8HlyL/STmYbVhUJ8YOQp1/iAo1gGGbglAcIa4NcSTjMn z1jZkHkoyeElYyd7qay5T9Mov+F04Eo/H83BQkGU2T3IldkY8/rWM/hcjBQ4DuXqPfnY paNXkjyPe51VrfNtf9rKh4i6xqN8vYbCN+Ei6gPr0AwzicFA+Na1XvUQiKVj5DaNGLAN NQ0Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=zFef4VNLqwF/7AA40P2uB2eiNiZqLBOIX9F0iyRFHO4=; b=H6EIwz4JT7C4Av0MuwbtJ0Q8hzE8E/iQmAdbL8Qc4TCZ3JAZDynwIq2CunAg1AhIzz O1e/ZviPso4bCwy1wKHCginKADk0kyN+tSTEhiDGiIwq2+AtS9Qea4Sy7+mC65xSpSGS b+xWN3ex53s4bskxxt1ULbkBPmp+STZ2iy1mYH6X3TUo8u9Kvr9wZWlsDlmoa7YAH3SA gfm1rZBrQLipkRCCMyJCZNTm9K+4+lzf453XMZCgPjt+4n7tvG9nlujnpoGm3IhGpSm4 x9iI6jaoigyDdOYFcyHxpQ6yC8cv5kxVGsuwpAEz7n2ozEJciQbIQYEeodrrJ7ZUVcxx Tw5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXjfKA4tWtaQFxIYtQawfLRSe7z5X7+VDSwGZjK1kv4HNPpAOP2 dEEfeT7Q9F3bYt3RrfCtOtw/6A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzF7PpTiM/8oDlXwD2V9XP7xK191GROEOjptsEeGFruhxEHHPNf2R53IKb1yVq/J085McfoUw==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:ad6f:: with SMTP id v44mr4344994qvc.40.1562891551474; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:470:c1a2:1:1414:e90b:150f:bd61? ([2001:470:c1a2:1:1414:e90b:150f:bd61]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f25sm3362893qta.81.2019.07.11.17.32.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <56174A38-0D4A-4E77-BC30-3F99534C7337@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_987AC539-3ED2-4967-AA6E-1FE30766332E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 20:32:26 -0400
In-Reply-To: <680C7A57-BBF9-4AD5-9E51-AA101CDDC751@bangj.com>
Cc: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, DNSSD <dnssd@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnssd-push.all@ietf.org, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
To: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
References: <156175221593.21875.9525138908968318905@ietfa.amsl.com> <9E6DE124-9262-4870-A920-4E707A38DC08@bangj.com> <CAPDSy+7om=cBW51cyuPea9nabgJuRV3M+++gA7sy8VzfNpkn6Q@mail.gmail.com> <9F8CFF4A-ABC1-4005-AE65-6CE64940B59F@apple.com> <CAPDSy+6V+ooWDe7XezmWA_XKNQXRAOex8DE5CiTnZdz8zc-9CA@mail.gmail.com> <F6DD5CEF-E644-46E3-84B5-18309F6B44C5@apple.com> <270A8516-8BE8-441A-A6CC-4FDE8EFE2B10@fugue.com> <BF75518F-25E9-4283-B647-6382F50A5CCA@bangj.com> <ED99C670-3149-417C-B465-99A48D70C584@bangj.com> <83331D7B-2853-4B5B-8350-ACD18922780E@fugue.com> <FC48248A-51E9-421A-8C91-B4DD41C9FC2F@bangj.com> <60198834-66F0-4CF0-BB09-B987684F3616@fugue.com> <680C7A57-BBF9-4AD5-9E51-AA101CDDC751@bangj.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/ilT24A6XjMDj7EQy6EtckaxMxf0>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnssd-push-20
X-BeenThere: dnssd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to DNS-based service discovery for routed networks." <dnssd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnssd/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnssd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 00:32:35 -0000

On Jul 11, 2019, at 7:39 PM, Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> wrote:
> There is no back to back reconnect in the #2 case. The server shouldn’t accept the connection after sending a RETRY DELAY to this client. The client may ignore the RETRY DELAY but this doesn’t matter. It’s only a courtesy that the SERVER tells the client how long it has to wait.

I don’t know how the server refuses connections on a per-client basis.   We certainly don’t describe how to do that in the DSO RFC.  Practically speaking, unless the server is maintaining a list of all the clients that connect to it, it has no idea that client X that it just dropped is client Y that just connected.   Even if it does maintain such a list, it would be unusual for that to allow it to actually drop the connection immediately.   And supposing it does, that might just make the client reconnect a bit faster.   That is, if the SYN gets an RST in response, the client will just get -1 from connect() and call connect() again unless it has some kind of backoff strategy.