On 7 Jan 2016, at 5:34, sara wrote:
On 6 Jan 2016, at 20:08, Ben Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-05: No Objection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 3.2.2:
I think it would be helpful to give some more guidance about the
“timeout” period. That is, when does it start, does it reset when
a new
query is sent, etc? This is somewhat implied by the term “idle”,
but it
would be better to be explicit.
The -05 version of this draft now normatively references
draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis and the Terminology section there defines an
“Idle DNS-over-TCP session”. But I agree it would help if we add a
specific terminology reference to that section early in this document.
5966bis defines what "idle" means, but I do not see anything that
defines how the timeout works. It's likely I missed something.
-3.3.2:
I understand from later in the draft that the OPT RR in a query does
not
necessarily need to have include edns-tcp-keepalive for the server to
include it in the response. A careless reader might easily miss that
distinction. It would be helpful to emphasize it here.
Suggest:
"A DNS server that receives a query sent using TCP transport that
includes an EDNS0 OPT RR (with or without the edns-tcp-keepalive
option) MAY include the edns-tcp-keepalive option in the
response to signal the expected idle timeout on a connection. "
Works for me.
=== Editorial===
- Abstract:
The abstract is rather long. The first paragraph might be better left
to
the introduction section.
I think that the first version of this draft appeared before 5966bis,
so giving this level of background was useful/necessary. We can
reconsider this though.
It's not a huge deal either way.
- 1:
The introduction sort of buries the lede. The idea that clients and
servers need to manage idle connections is not mentioned until
paragraphs
8 and 9. That's the whole point of the document.
Again, probably for historical reasons. I wonder if moving paragraph 8
to be paragraph 2 would help?
I think it might.
Sara.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
