Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-04

sara <sara@sinodun.com> Thu, 03 December 2015 10:56 UTC

Return-Path: <sara@sinodun.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 C99741B3386; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 02:56:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 orwg2iBWl-cH; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 02:56:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shcp01.hosting.zen.net.uk (shcp01.hosting.zen.net.uk [88.98.24.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E95CA1B3385; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 02:56:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 82-68-8-206.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk ([82.68.8.206]:51840 helo=[192.168.100.27]) by shcp01.hosting.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <sara@sinodun.com>) id 1a4RYf-00076K-Q7; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 10:56:18 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: sara <sara@sinodun.com>
In-Reply-To: <565F712D.6080300@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 10:56:18 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D4A77CFA-4F05-4F57-A1F0-27E53C9AFC4B@sinodun.com>
References: <565B6B3A.9030703@gmail.com> <879ACEE4-18E2-474E-AD0F-287529B6B2E3@sinodun.com> <565F712D.6080300@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - shcp01.hosting.zen.net.uk
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - sinodun.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: shcp01.hosting.zen.net.uk: authenticated_id: sara+sinodun.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/cBj7Nsobbc2AvcWnn7XrttyRuTM>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-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, 03 Dec 2015 10:56:25 -0000

> On 2 Dec 2015, at 22:31, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sara,
> 
>>> 
>>> Specifically:
>>> 
>>> "Section 6.1.3.2 of [RFC1123] states:
>>> 
>>>     DNS resolvers and recursive servers MUST support UDP, and SHOULD
>>>     support TCP, for sending (non-zone-transfer) queries."
>>> 
>>> Please make an explicit statement that this SHOULD is changed to MUST.
>> 
>> The bis reproduces 2 statements verbatim from RFC5966 with regard to this. In paragraph 4 of the Introduction: 
>> 
>> “This document therefore updates the core DNS protocol specifications
>>   such that support for TCP is henceforth a REQUIRED part of a full DNS
>>   protocol implementation."
>> 
>> and in the first sentence of Section 5
>> 
>> “All general-purpose DNS implementations MUST support both UDP and TCP transport.”
>> 
>> In light of this do you still think we need another statement to this effect?
> 
> Well, this may seem picky, but since you quote the text, I think that
> a clear statement that you are changing it is useful. IMHO, YMMV, of course.

The sentence is updated in 2 ways
- changing SHOULD to MUST and 
- the reference to using TCP just for zone transfers is also removed
which might be why it seemed easier to just restate it in RFC5966. 

Would it help if Section 5 was updated to read:

“ Section 6.1.3.2 of [RFC1123] is updated: All general-purpose DNS
  implementations MUST support both UDP and TCP transport.”

> 
> Adding the "Updates: 1035, 1123" is necessary, though.

Agreed, will update. 

Regards

Sara.