Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query-05

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

Hi Paul,

I glanced at the -06 version and (together with your previous reply) it looks fine to me.

Thanks
   Brian

On 11/01/2016 17:32, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On 01/09/2016 11:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> (added dnsop to the CC: for some feedback)
> 
> Thanks for the review Brian!
> 
>> Summary: Almost ready
>> --------
>>
>> Comment:
>> --------
>>
>> As noted in the writeup, there was some WG controversy about this choice
>> of method, but since the proposed status is Experimental, that doesn't
>> seem to be an issue.
>>
>> Minor Issues:
>> -------------
>>
>> It might be better if the abstract didn't make a blunt claim about reduced
>> latency. "The reduction in queries potentially lowers the latency..." would
>> be safer.
> 
> Added the word "potentially" as suggested.
> 
>> Section 1, last paragraph:
>>
>>> This EDNS0 extension is only intended to be sent by Forwarders to
>>> Recursive Resolvers.  It can (and should) be ignored by Authoritative
>>> Servers.
>>
>> That "should" seems normative to me. In fact, it might even be a MUST.
> 
> You are right. I've changed "can (and should)" to MUST.
> 
>> The technical description of the option and how it's used seems fine
>> to me. Is a discussion of interaction with DNS64 (RFC6147) needed?
>> RFC6147 does not mention forwarders so I don't really understand
>> whether something needs to be said about this, but DNS64 does mess
>> up validation chains.
> 
> That is a very good question!
> 
> I don't think it would interfere with DNS64 any more than a regular query would. If the resolver doing the chain-query is the DNS64 resolver, then it will work
> fine, and only after it obtained the query-chain result will it rewrite the answer to an AAAA record if needed. If the client is a stub asking a chain-query,
> then it would have all the same DNS64 problems with the chain-query as with a regular query.
> 
> The question is, should we write that up or not? I would lean towards not, as this is not something that affects chain-queries differently from regular queries.
> 
>>> 7.  Implementation Status
>>
>> In view of its final sentence, I doubt the value of this section.
>> Perhaps a short section on the goals and timeline of experiments
>> with this mechanism would be better.
> 
> See  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6982
> 
> The section will be removed before final publication. I will add a note to make this more explicit.
> 
> 
>>> 9.1.  Simple Query for example.com
>>>
>>>   o  A web browser on a client machine asks the Forwarder running on
>>>      localhost to resolve the A record of "www.example.com." by sending
>>>      a regular DNS UDP query on port 53 to 127.0.0.1.
>>
>> Why not use AAAA examples these days?
> 
> I don't think this matters much, and there is still more operational experience with IPv4. If people think this is important, I have no problem changing it to AAAA.
> 
> Paul
> 
>