DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements
draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements-03

[Ballot comment]
These comments are all minor:

1) The first bullet of section 4 could be read incorrectly to mean that an authoritative server implementation can not limit the size of responses for any reason.

2) It is odd to put normative requirements (MAY) on proprietary (hence non-standard) implementations. Can the section about stub resolvers be rewritten as simple commentary?

3) +1 to Dan's comment re: RECOMMENDS

[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART Review by Avshalom Houri on 2010-06-11 raised a question
  about about this portion of the document:
  >
  > That requirement is hereby relaxed.  A resolver SHOULD send a UDP
  > query first, but MAY elect to send a TCP query instead if it has good
  > reason to expect the response would be truncated if it were sent over
  > UDP (with or without EDNS0) or for other operational reasons, in
  > particular if it already has an open TCP connection to the server.
  >
  The question was:
  >
  > What should be the behavior here?  Try TCP and then revert to UDP?
  > What should be the timeout for the TCP trial?  Seems that this needs
  > a bit of clarification.
  >
  The response to this question makes sense:
  >
  > In the latter case no text should be necessary (IMHO).  This
  > document doesn't change the protocol processing.  This particular
  > section merely permits TCP first in some cases, relaxing
  > Section 6.1.3.2 of RFC 1123.
  >
  A statement that this is relaxing Section 6.1.3.2 of RFC 1123
  seems like an excellent idea.

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Peter's concern WRT the document name. The Abstract could also do with clarifying to indicate this is a deployment imperative and not input to a new protocol specification.

[Ballot comment]
1. The title "DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements" makes it sound as if this document is defining requirements for subsequent work regarding implementation of DNS-over-TCP, not requiring implementations to support DNS-over-TCP. Perhaps something like "TCP Required for DNS Implementations" would be clearer.

2. The document exempts "proprietary stub resolver implementations" but does not define "proprietary" in this context. Does this mean that as long as my implementation is not open-source, I don't need to support TCP? Or by "proprietary" does the author mean that the implementation is deployed in a particular environment (as seems to be implied)? If the latter, then the exemption applies to deployments, not implementations.

[Ballot comment]
Section 4, second bullet:
s/so that the do not/so that they do not/

Is the text regarding proprietary stub resolvers in section 4 necessary?  The section opens with
"All general purpose DNS implementations MUST ...", and a proprietary stub resolver seems to
be explicitly outside the scope of the section.  If it is needed, I would suggest replacing that
paragraph with something a little more restrictive, along the following lines:

  Stub resolver implementations specifically designed for deployment in
  restricted environments where truncation can never occur, or DNS lookup
  failure is acceptable, MAY omit support for TCP.

[Ballot comment]
Section 4, second bullet:
s/so that the do not/so that they do not/

Is the text regarding proprietary stub resolvers in section 4 necessary?  The section opens with
"All general purpose DNS implementations MUST ...", and a proprietary stub resolver seems to
be explicitly outside the scope of the section.

[Ballot comment]
1. It would be useful to indicate the reference for the terms used in the normative text in section 4 (authoritative server, recursive resolver, stub resolver) - RFC 1035 or other

2. insection 5: 'This document therefore RECOMMENDS ...' - this phrase needs to be reformulated as 'RECOMMENDS' is not the 2119 keyword to be used in a capitalization

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Olafur Gudmundsson DNSEXT co-chair
I have reviewed this version and prior versions, and this one is ready
for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document has had extensive review by the working group, over 30
people have send in comments or opinions on this document.


(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

This document was started after RFC5625, as the IESG review exposed that
prior DNS documentation is not as clear as was intended on TCP query
support by DNS protocol elements.
This document addresses that.
The document explicitly does not prescribe how TCP is used by DNS software.


(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

We have strong consensus with vocal opposition.
The working group understands the document and the issues.


(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes, there are no nits. The document does not contain MIB's or URI's or
any other components that need extra review.


(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes, references are in order.


(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

There are no IANA actions


(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

does not apply

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?

Technical Summary:
This document expresses in clearly that general purpose DNS software
needs to be able to to perform DNS queries over TCP.

Working Group Summary:
The discussion in the working centered on following issues:
Is TCP required for some queries: Answer in general yes

How should TCP connections be handled: The document states that
DNS servers can terminate open TCP connections when they want/need to.

Is the document requiring DNS operators to provide TCP query service:
Answer: No. Such specification is outside the working group's scope and
it is an decision for each DNS Operator.

Document Quality:
The document is well written and expresses the issues clearly.
The actions are clearly marked and the text that is being updated is
quoted.