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

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Thanks.

On 07 Jan 2016, at 21:08, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>>