Still "Ready with issues" pending a new version. Regards Brian
On 24/11/2015 04:03, Tim Wicinski wrote: > Brian > > Thanks for the review - comments in line. > > On 11/22/15 8:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just >> like any other last call comments. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-04.txt >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >> Review Date: 2015-11-23 >> IETF LC End Date: 2015-11-30 >> IESG Telechat date: >> >> Summary: Ready with issues >> -------- >> >> Comment: These are only standards-language issues, nothing fundamental. >> -------- >> >> Major Issues: >> ------------- >> >> Last paragraph of section 3.2.2. Receiving Responses: >> >> A DNS client that sent a query containing the edns-keepalive-option >> but receives a response that does not contain the edns-keepalive- >> option should assume the server does not support keepalive and behave >> following the guidance in [DRAFT-5966bis]. This holds true even if a >> previous edns-keepalive-option exchange occurred on the existing TCP >> connection. >> >> Firstly, shouldn't that "should" be a SHOULD? > > Yes, that should be a SHOULD. Good catch > >> >> More important, [DRAFT-5966bis] really looks like a normative reference to >> me. >> I couldn't code this without reading that reference. It's already entering >> Last Call so hopefully this won't waste much time. > > That's interesting. I think we decided to make it informative is that its > covering new discussions. > >> >> Section 3.6. Anycast Considerations: >> >> ... >> Changes in network topology between clients and anycast servers may >> cause disruption to TCP sessions making use of edns-tcp-keepalive >> more often than with TCP sessions that omit it, since the TCP >> sessions are expected to be longer-lived. Anycast servers MAY make >> use of TCP multipath [RFC6824] to anchor the server side of the TCP >> connection to an unambiguously-unicast address in order to avoid >> disruption due to topology changes. >> >> IMHO, [RFC6824] is another normative reference; and it's a downref since >> it's an Experimental RFC. I think you could avoid this by weakening >> the last sentence a bit: >> >> It might be possible for anycast servers to avoid disruption due to >> topology changes by making use of TCP multipath [RFC6824] to anchor >> the server side of the TCP connection to an unambiguously unicast >> address. >> > > That's a useful edit. I'll circle back to the authors on this. > > thanks again > > tim > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
