Subject: [DNSOP] review of draft-dickinson-dnsop-5966-bis-00.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:48:52 +0100

Some comments:
 - 4 page 5: "It (TCP)
   SHOULD NOT be used only for zone transfers and as a fallback."

  this SHOULD NOT is very hard to implement without dubious
  interpretations (i.e., the idea is right but the current wording
  could lead to unexpected/unwanted results).

 - 5 page 4: "both clients and servers SHOULD support connection reuse"
  this should not be applied to servers as they MUST use the same
  connection than queries are received (cf last statement of 4 page 5).
  IMHO this is mainly a wording issue.

 - 5 page 6: the last statement of RFC 5966 was removed, perhaps
  because it could be applied to the TCP fast open?

 - 5 page 5-6: a problem is not covered: what a server should do when
  a client closes the TCP connection before pending responses are
  sent. I.e., what to specify for the server side of lack of connection
  signaling? Note the new 6 page 5 makes this more likely.

 - 6 page 5: either the should for parallel processing has to be upper
  case or another word has to be used. Note the new 7 uses a RECOMMENDED
  key word for a statement including this.

 - 8 page 7: IMHO 8 (TCP Fast Open) should be dropped or moved.

 - 9 page 7: please move this section (summary of pros and cons)
  in an appendix as it is clearly not normative.

 - 11 page 9: I am repeating what I said at the mic: if we don't allow
  servers to close TCP connections with any timeout, including 0 seconds,
  we'll open servers supporting TCP (so all servers :-) to easy DoS
  attacks.

Regards

[email-masked]