On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:25:29 +0000, "Wessels, Duane" wrote: > >> On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Mukund Sivaraman <m...@isc.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Jinmei >> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:31:23AM -0800, 神明達哉 wrote: >>> At Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:37:48 +0530, >>> Mukund Sivaraman <m...@isc.org> wrote: >>> >>>> While looking at a bug last week in an implementation of 5966bis and >>>> AXFR, I found that there's no explicit mention of AXFR and out-of-order >>>> replies. AXFR replies [RFC 5936] can arrive in several messages over >>>> TCP. While 5966bis speaks only about re-ordering replies and not >>>> individiual messages (and so, is not incorrect), I feel that explicitly >>>> describing ordering in the AXFR case would avoid confusion. >>>> >>>> It seems that AXFR messages would have to be sent in order to avoid >>>> confusion at the client about when a transfer correctly completed >>>> vs. when it timed out. While they can be multiplexed with other DNS >>>> messages, the individual messages of a single transfer must not be sent >>>> out of order. >>> >>> I'm not sure if I understand the concern...do you mean, for example, >>> if an AXFR consists of the following 3 messages: >>> >>> Message1: beginning SOA and some RRs >>> Message2: some intermediate RRs >>> Message3: some more intermediate RRs >>> Message4: some more RRs and ending SOA >>> >>> the client side of AXFR receives them in the order of, e.g., Message2, >>> Message3, Message4, and then Message1? That is, Message1 is not >>> necessarily sent/received first and/or Message4 is not necessarily >>> sent/received last? >> >> Yes. Without them being in order, it doesn't seem the client can >> determine upon timeout if all messages corresponding to the transfer >> have been received, or if the transfer is incomplete. >> >> Example: >> >> (1) Message1, Message4, Message2, Message3 received. >> Timeout complete and TCP still connected. >> >> (2) Message1, Message4, Message2 received. [Message3] not received when >> timeout complete and TCP still connected. >> >> How can client know that in (2), the whole transfer was not received? > > >TCP preserves the order of delivery, so if the messages are received in >the order above, it is an AXFR/IXFR protocol violation by the server. The >server must send Message4 last.
Perhaps some of the confusion here has to do with overloading the term "message". There are DNS query and response messages and TCP segments. A DNS message is a query and response (as per RFC1034 and draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-02). For AXFRs, the DNS message maybe large enough that it is split into multiple TCP segments (each a separate packet). The statement: "an AXFR consists of the following 3 messages: Message1: beginning SOA and some RRs, Message2: some intermediate RRs, Message3: some more intermediate RRs..." I think conflates these concepts (it uses the term "message" incorrectly). The AXFR reply does NOT consist of 3 DNS messages, it is ONE DNS message that is split into 3 or more TCP segments. Proposed 5966bis reiterates what was first said in RFC5966: DNS messages over TCP may have replies sent in different order than queries. However, TCP guarantees that the CONTENTS of each DNS message will be provided in strict order, even if it spans multiple TCP segments. -John Heidemann _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
