Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-13: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [abstract vs. S1/S3, question] * The abstract says: "...strongly encourages the operational practice of permitting DNS messages to be carried over TCP" while section 1 says: "...all DNS resolvers and recursive servers MUST support and service both TCP and UDP queries" and section 3 also some MUST text. Should the abstract be updated to say MUST rather than just "strongly encourages", or is there a subtly in here I'm missing? [S4.1, comment] * "Resolvers and other DNS clients should be aware that some servers might not be reachable over TCP. For this reason, clients MAY want to track and limit the number of TCP connections and connection attempts to a single server." I think the same comment could be made about paths to a server from a given network, e.g., in the case of one network filtering TCP/53 for some reason. I'm not sure how to best reword this to add a per-network notion to TCP connection success tracking, but I did want to note that a mobile client's measure of TCP connection success to a single server might vary from network to network. (for your consideration) _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
