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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

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
>