Lars, thank you for the review.
Some of your easier comments and suggestions have been addressed, but for some
of them will require more thought and attention. I am waiting to coordinate
with my coauthor, and possibly the WG chairs.
> On Oct 26, 2021, at 4:35 AM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Section 2.4. , paragraph 1, comment:
>> 2.4. Fragmentation and Truncation
>
> Fragmentation and IP fragments getting dropped is one reason for needing more
> retries with EDNS(0). But IIRC, a larger contributing factor is that EDNS(0)
> doesn't detect or recover from loss of any UDP packets making up the overall
> message. That means that a normal packet loss (due to congestion or other
> reasons) amplifies into loss of the entire DNS message.
How does this new paragraph look to you?
<t>Note that a receiver is unable to differentiate between packets
lost due to congestion and packets (fragments) intentionally
dropped by firewalls or middleboxes. Over network paths with
non-trival amounts of packet loss, larger, fragmented DNS responses
are more likely to never arrive and time out compared to smaller,
unfragmented responses. Clients might be misled into retrying
queries with different EDNS(0) UDP packet size values for the
wrong reason.</t>
>
>
> Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
Thanks, changed to primary and secondary.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose
> to
> address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit.
These have all been accepted, except for the cases where we do intentionally
refer to obsoleted RFCs.
DW
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
