Hello Gorry, thanks for your additional clarifications. I addressed the points as mentioned in-line and pushed a new revision:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis-13&url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis-14&difftype=--html > > > > > Clarified that this is about ICMP/ICMPv6. > > > > Do you think that this needs informative references for > > ICMP/ICMPv6? > This additional REF is not needed by me. Ok. > > > > > ----------------------------- > > > > > ## Section 3.2: Impact of other headers (why “MAY) > > > > > "DNS servers MAY ensure that a total packet > > > > > size of 1280 octets is not exceeded by setting an MSS > > > > > of > > > > > 1220 > > > > > octets." > > > > > (a) I suggest this wording does not present a requirement, > > > > > perhaps > > > > > the "MAY" ought to be lower case "may" or "can". (b) Please > > > > > explain > > > > > why how this avoids a size of 1280 octets? (To me, the total > > > > > packet > > > > > size includes any other extension or encapsulation headers, > > > > > and > > > > > these > > > > > could result in a packet greater than 1280 octets.) What use- > > > > > case > > > > > was > > > > > intended? > > > > > This again follows the same rational as with RFC9715 for UDP, > > > > > but > > > > > translated to TCP. > > > > > > > > > > GF: I agree, adding that explanation would be useful. > > > > That explanation should be in there as well, now: > > > > > > > > Please note that, for TCP, the resulting packet's size may be > > > > further > > > > enlarged by additional fields in the TCP header being in use, > > > > and > > > > these > > > > MSS values assume a minimal TCP header. > > > > > > > Is that correct? Or does MSS consider this? > > The MSS does not consider the TCP header, see: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9293#name-maximum-segment-size-option > > I think we might nearly agree: The MSS Option sets the packet size > for > the remote sender, MS_S is the configured maximum size for a > transport-layer message that TCP may send. When there are any > options, > The TCP packet size is effectively reduced by TCPhdrsize (the size of > the fixed TCP header and any IP or TCP options), as per Section > 3.7.1. > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9293#section-3.7.1> > > The new text says something I think could be confusing: > > "Furthermore, to provide additional > clarity similar to the above guidance on UDP, DNS > servers MAY > ensure that a total packet size of 1280 octets is > not exceeded by > setting an MSS of 1220 octets, as suggested by > the > [DNSFlagDay2020] initiative. Note that the > resulting packet's > size for TCP may be further enlarged by > additional > fields in the > TCP header being in use [RFC9293], and these MSS > values assume a > minimal TCP header." > > I suggest something more like: > > "Furthermore, to provide additional > clarity similar to the above guidance on UDP, DNS > servers MAY > ensure that a total packet size of 1280 octets is > not exceeded by > setting the Sender MSS (MMS_S) to 1220 octets, as > suggested by the > [DNSFlagDay2020] initiative, see section 3.7.1 of > [RFC9293]. " > > > I added a reference to 9293. > > Thanks, since this can be a difficult topic, I suggest we also > include > the section number in the clarification (as above). I adopted the text you suggested. > > > > > With best regards, > > Tobias > > > There is also one new statement that I think could perhaps age, > please > consider: > > /While measurements have shown this to be/While measurements have > shown > this to currently be/ This has been implemented as well. With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
