> On 6 Jan 2016, at 14:54, Brian Haberman <[email protected]> wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > While I am not a fan of standards-track requirements documents, I > understand the history of 5966 and support the publication of this > document. I do have a couple of comments for your consideration. > > 1. Is it worth mentioning in the Intro that another drive towards more > TCP-based DNS exchanges may be the desire to re-use existing security > associations for DNS privacy solutions?
We could add an informational reference to draft-ietf-dprive-dns-over-tls. > > 2. Is there a reference to back up the statement "However, transport of > UDP packets that exceed the size of the path MTU causes IP packet > fragmentation, which has been found to be unreliable in many > circumstances."? It would be good to be able to gauge just how unreliable > this issue has become. After some searching I’m not sure there is a definitive, recent one. Possibilities are: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ripe-atlas-packet-size-matters <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ripe-atlas-packet-size-matters> which references the older: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=205447.205456 <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=205447.205456> And there is also some discussion of this in SSAC035 / RFC 5625. > 3. I agree with Martin's suggested re-wording in Section 8. Agreed. Sara
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
