On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 10:53:57AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote: > > > > We specifically didn’t want to reference DoH since HTTP is unsuitable > > for long lived connections and DSO wouldn’t apply here. We didn’t want to > > imply that DoH was suitable by referencing it. > > > > Hmm. I think DoH is clearly a non-UDP transport for DNS, and it is hard to > > argue that it is not being specified. My parenthetical suggestion was > > probably a bit unclear -- I was proposing to add DNS over HTTP to the list > > in the first sentence, and change the second sentence to start as "Some > > such transports can offer persistent[...]". Does that still seem like it > > runs the risk of implying that DoH is suitable, to you? > > > > Rr. Okay, I agree with you and when I went to do this, it occurred to me > that we are being silly here—this document has no applicability section. > Adding one will really clean this up a lot. So I've done that: > [diff trimmed]
That does clean up quite a few things; thank you for putting in the effort to makme the broader change! (Do we care that we no longer talk about SRV discovery? I don't think I do, just wanted to check...) > > > > How about: > > > > > > When a new TLV is defined, the specification MUST include whether the > > DSO-TYPE can be used as the Primary TLV, used as an Additional TLV, or used > > in either context for both requests and responses. > > > > That's probably better (but maybe another comma before "for both requests > > and responses"? OTOH, the RFC Editor has a consistent style book to > > apply...) > > > > I updated the text to make it more generally imperative, and to be really > explicit about the point you're making rather than just hoping the comma > will be enough. :) > > Specifications that define new TLVs must specify whether the DSO-TYPE > can be used as the Primary TLV, used as an Additional TLV, or used in either > context, both in the case of requests and of responses. > The specification for a TLV must also state whether, > when used as the Primary (i.e., first) TLV in a DNS request message (i.e., > QR=0), > that DSO message is to be acknowledged. > If the DSO message is to be acknowledged, the specification > must also state which TLVs, if any, are to be included in the response. > The Primary TLV may or may not be contained in the response, > depending on what is specified for that TLV. The epitome of clarity :) Thanks again, Benjamin _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
