On 01/09/2016 11:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: (added dnsop to the CC: for some feedback)
Thanks for the review Brian! > Summary: Almost ready > -------- > > Comment: > -------- > > As noted in the writeup, there was some WG controversy about this choice > of method, but since the proposed status is Experimental, that doesn't > seem to be an issue. > > Minor Issues: > ------------- > > It might be better if the abstract didn't make a blunt claim about reduced > latency. "The reduction in queries potentially lowers the latency..." would > be safer. Added the word "potentially" as suggested. > Section 1, last paragraph: > >> This EDNS0 extension is only intended to be sent by Forwarders to >> Recursive Resolvers. It can (and should) be ignored by Authoritative >> Servers. > > That "should" seems normative to me. In fact, it might even be a MUST. You are right. I've changed "can (and should)" to MUST. > The technical description of the option and how it's used seems fine > to me. Is a discussion of interaction with DNS64 (RFC6147) needed? > RFC6147 does not mention forwarders so I don't really understand > whether something needs to be said about this, but DNS64 does mess > up validation chains. That is a very good question! I don't think it would interfere with DNS64 any more than a regular query would. If the resolver doing the chain-query is the DNS64 resolver, then it will work fine, and only after it obtained the query-chain result will it rewrite the answer to an AAAA record if needed. If the client is a stub asking a chain-query, then it would have all the same DNS64 problems with the chain-query as with a regular query. The question is, should we write that up or not? I would lean towards not, as this is not something that affects chain-queries differently from regular queries. >> 7. Implementation Status > > In view of its final sentence, I doubt the value of this section. > Perhaps a short section on the goals and timeline of experiments > with this mechanism would be better. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6982 The section will be removed before final publication. I will add a note to make this more explicit. >> 9.1. Simple Query for example.com >> >> o A web browser on a client machine asks the Forwarder running on >> localhost to resolve the A record of "www.example.com." by sending >> a regular DNS UDP query on port 53 to 127.0.0.1. > > Why not use AAAA examples these days? I don't think this matters much, and there is still more operational experience with IPv4. If people think this is important, I have no problem changing it to AAAA. Paul _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
