Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-04

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 07 January 2016 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F07D1A0102; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 13:08:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 Wum71Cvn1AvF; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 13:08:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4713D1A0105; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 13:08:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA5E2CCAE; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 23:08:18 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id StO2yPi9UfYD; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 23:08:17 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8860A2CE21; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 23:08:17 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1821D065-EF19-4E8B-84B5-E320E58FDF62"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <568EB79F.80502@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 23:08:14 +0200
Message-Id: <F2ACD970-9BF0-480F-868A-368543F3FD2B@piuha.net>
References: <565272B0.8080905@gmail.com> <56532AC4.6020800@gmail.com> <5685A7FF.2030204@gmail.com> <014910CF-8F4E-4019-A852-491F026ECF24@piuha.net> <568EB79F.80502@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/CxwuyQ2kZ3RlaGvuKGx9LvtpSsU>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-04
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 21:08:22 -0000

Thanks.

On 07 Jan 2016, at 21:08, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just confirming, as the IESG dealt with this while I was sleeping:
> 
> Yes, everything looks fine in the -05 draft.
> 
> Thanks
>   Brian
> 
> On 08/01/2016 01:39, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> Many thanks again for the review. My read of the new version indicates that the issues have been resolved. Let me know otherwise.
>> 
>> Jari
>> 
>> On 01 Jan 2016, at 00:11, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Still "Ready with issues" pending a new version.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>>  Brian
>>> 
>>> On 24/11/2015 04:03, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>>>> Brian
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the review - comments in line.
>>>> 
>>>> On 11/22/15 8:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>>>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>>>>> like any other last call comments.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-04.txt
>>>>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
>>>>> Review Date: 2015-11-23
>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2015-11-30
>>>>> IESG Telechat date:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Summary: Ready with issues
>>>>> --------
>>>>> 
>>>>> Comment: These are only standards-language issues, nothing fundamental.
>>>>> --------
>>>>> 
>>>>> Major Issues:
>>>>> -------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> Last paragraph of section 3.2.2.  Receiving Responses:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   A DNS client that sent a query containing the edns-keepalive-option
>>>>>   but receives a response that does not contain the edns-keepalive-
>>>>>   option should assume the server does not support keepalive and behave
>>>>>   following the guidance in [DRAFT-5966bis].  This holds true even if a
>>>>>   previous edns-keepalive-option exchange occurred on the existing TCP
>>>>>   connection.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Firstly, shouldn't that "should" be a SHOULD?
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, that should be a SHOULD.  Good catch
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> More important, [DRAFT-5966bis] really looks like a normative reference to me.
>>>>> I couldn't code this without reading that reference. It's already entering
>>>>> Last Call so hopefully this won't waste much time.
>>>> 
>>>> That's interesting. I think we decided to make it informative is that its covering new discussions.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Section 3.6.  Anycast Considerations:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   ...
>>>>>   Changes in network topology between clients and anycast servers may
>>>>>   cause disruption to TCP sessions making use of edns-tcp-keepalive
>>>>>   more often than with TCP sessions that omit it, since the TCP
>>>>>   sessions are expected to be longer-lived.  Anycast servers MAY make
>>>>>   use of TCP multipath [RFC6824] to anchor the server side of the TCP
>>>>>   connection to an unambiguously-unicast address in order to avoid
>>>>>   disruption due to topology changes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> IMHO, [RFC6824] is another normative reference; and it's a downref since
>>>>> it's an Experimental RFC. I think you could avoid this by weakening
>>>>> the last sentence a bit:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   It might be possible for anycast servers to avoid disruption due to
>>>>>   topology changes by making use of TCP multipath [RFC6824] to anchor
>>>>>   the server side of the TCP connection to an unambiguously unicast address.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> That's a useful edit. I'll circle back to the authors on this.
>>>> 
>>>> thanks again
>>>> 
>>>> tim
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gen-art mailing list
>>> Gen-art@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>>