Sorry, I forgot one additional comment.
While there seems not be a solid definition of what the “Updates” means in the
RFC header, it always seems to me that “Updates” means you are changing
something in those documents, rather than just extending them with new
capabilities within the original documents framework.
I see nothing in the document that makes any changes (“updates”) RFC 1035 and
RFC 7766.
RFC 5741 just has:
[<RFC relation>: <RFC number[s]>]
Some relations between RFCs in the series are explicitly noted in
the RFC header. For example, a new RFC may update one or more
earlier RFCs. Currently two relationships are defined: "Updates"
and "Obsoletes" [RFC2223<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2223>].
Alternatives like "Obsoleted by" are
also used (e.g., in [RFC5143<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5143>]).
Other types of relationships may
be defined by the RFC Editor and may appear in future RFCs.
If you’ve already discussed this or believe the “Updates” to be in line with
DNSOP / Ops Area practices, feel free to ignore this comment.
* Bernie
From: Bernie Volz <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 9:18 PM
To: "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: WGLC draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal
Hi:
I have reviewed the document. In general, it is well written and ready to be
advanced, though there are some nits that the authors should review and
consider:
Section 1: Not sure why Stateful is capitalized in the following line:
transport protocol. Each Stateful operation is communicated in its
Section 2: You probably should update this to the text in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8174 and update the references accordingly.
Section 3: Do you want to add anything about Section 6 (and perhaps later
sections)?
Section 4.2.2.3 (and perhaps other places similar text exists): When a
connection is aborted because of an invalid message, is there any
recommendation to be added about retrying? If the client terminates the
connection, it would likely not be wise for it to immediately retry and repeat
the operation as that can lead to an endless loop? Should some recommended
backoff technique be provided? Or some other connection rate limiting warning?
Section 4.2.3, last paragraph: What should happen if a EDNS(0) TCP Keepalive
option does appear? Should the connection be terminated? The message ignored?
Section 4.3: first paragraph: This text kind of conflicts with the text in
4.2.1 which says that whether a message is acknowledge or unacknowledged is
determined only by the specification for the Primary TLV. I understand this may
not be worth addressing, but perhaps a reference to 4.2.1 is worth considering?
Section 6.1: INACTIVITY TIMEOUT and KEEPALIVE INTERVAL. Is mention 0xffffffff
(infinite) worth adding to this text?
For:
The Keepalive TLV is not used as a request message Additional TLV.
Would “MUST NOT be used” be better?
For:
A Keepalive TLV MUST NOT be added as to other responses a Response
I think “as” should be removed.
Section 6.2: I would assume 0xfffffff would not mean infinite.
Section 6.2.1: If a client were to receive a new RCODE but does not understand
it (older version), should there be a statement as to how the client should
react? Should it treat the unknown error code as if NOERROR were sent?
Section 9: Seems a bit light, but OK if it ends up being acceptable. For
example, while it probably means you have bigger problems, but large timer
values (such as in the Retry Delay TLV) could be a denial of service vector.
Though if the server does that, it probably isn’t who you wanted to be talking
to anyway and you should have used TLS.
Perhaps also saying that if DNS over TLS isn’t used (just plan TCP), then it
may be possible for a man-in-the-middle to inject messages (such as with a
large Retry Delay TLV)?
Again, nothing that likely MUST be fixed.
* Bernie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
