Telechat Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-04
review-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-04-genart-telechat-carpenter-2015-12-31-00

Still "Ready with issues" pending a new version.

Regards
   Brian

On 24/11/2015 04:03, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Brian
>
> Thanks for the review - comments in line.
>
> On 11/22/15 8:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>>
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>> <

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-04.txt
>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
>> Review Date: 2015-11-23
>> IETF LC End Date: 2015-11-30
>> IESG Telechat date:
>>
>> Summary: Ready with issues
>> --------
>>
>> Comment: These are only standards-language issues, nothing fundamental.
>> --------
>>
>> Major Issues:
>> -------------
>>
>> Last paragraph of section 3.2.2.  Receiving Responses:
>>
>>     A DNS client that sent a query containing the edns-keepalive-option
>>     but receives a response that does not contain the edns-keepalive-
>>     option should assume the server does not support keepalive and behave
>>     following the guidance in [DRAFT-5966bis].  This holds true even if a
>>     previous edns-keepalive-option exchange occurred on the existing TCP
>>     connection.
>>
>> Firstly, shouldn't that "should" be a SHOULD?
>
> Yes, that should be a SHOULD.  Good catch
>
>>
>> More important, [DRAFT-5966bis] really looks like a normative reference to
me. >> I couldn't code this without reading that reference. It's already
entering >> Last Call so hopefully this won't waste much time. > > That's
interesting. I think we decided to make it informative is that its covering new
discussions. > >> >> Section 3.6.  Anycast Considerations: >> >>     ... >>    
Changes in network topology between clients and anycast servers may >>    
cause disruption to TCP sessions making use of edns-tcp-keepalive >>     more
often than with TCP sessions that omit it, since the TCP >>     sessions are
expected to be longer-lived.  Anycast servers MAY make >>     use of TCP
multipath [RFC6824] to anchor the server side of the TCP >>     connection to
an unambiguously-unicast address in order to avoid >>     disruption due to
topology changes. >> >> IMHO, [RFC6824] is another normative reference; and
it's a downref since >> it's an Experimental RFC. I think you could avoid this
by weakening >> the last sentence a bit: >> >>     It might be possible for
anycast servers to avoid disruption due to >>     topology changes by making
use of TCP multipath [RFC6824] to anchor >>     the server side of the TCP
connection to an unambiguously unicast address. >> > > That's a useful edit.
I'll circle back to the authors on this. > > thanks again > > tim >