Thanks. On 07 Jan 2016, at 21:08, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just confirming, as the IESG dealt with this while I was sleeping: > > Yes, everything looks fine in the -05 draft. > > Thanks > Brian > > On 08/01/2016 01:39, Jari Arkko wrote: >> Many thanks again for the review. My read of the new version indicates that >> the issues have been resolved. Let me know otherwise. >> >> Jari >> >> On 01 Jan 2016, at 00:11, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
