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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 31 December 2015 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 DF1DC1A8939; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:11:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ZD0mqItISDL7; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:11:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) (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 297151A8932; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:11:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-x232.google.com with SMTP id yy13so64375958pab.3; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:11:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Mi/TpOjgGBvMM96Sqasuh5g9rFPX5gyZ8plaK5ZUrtM=; b=UCGP3il4tjpyZ8Fvh/MyQ0MyyM0ko8AarNyvibxHVrZ2cDdIIfJAem7ShjvDmDO5R9 p+O4AoUI5eGfkFewxCvEsnpS3DSsepEDCEWKsmuYVSqcQQRY+r1EVnPBjDe5J8hGDMz7 pycGygQ489aZ8ZI0ZV1sSgblU0im5HPuX7IDUmpgZUIXcEf+XkN1zJJHG2V9r/ckAzB3 BGtnczx4uZukBiNI1XUe+Bm29wUqd8EyrJkYX0SYsXvCPwglZG79LecXBI6IYk8OTZIh doHBnRRNMv+zcjvaIgRT3YY2UZc1bjTlfTYompkf5RAu/atDKsON5CcQR+0pNPd+vS6C sjlg==
X-Received: by 10.66.65.203 with SMTP id z11mr104368683pas.152.1451599866796; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:11:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:66c8:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:66c8:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e67sm69206837pfd.7.2015.12.31.14.11.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:11:05 -0800 (PST)
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive.all@ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
References: <565272B0.8080905@gmail.com> <56532AC4.6020800@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <5685A7FF.2030204@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:11:11 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56532AC4.6020800@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ZqIVYxTZdxHp3jmfaIcy-RQkTmE>
Subject: [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, 31 Dec 2015 22:11:09 -0000

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
>