Subject: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-bellis-dnsop-session-signal-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:21:58 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.

        Title           : DNS Session Signaling
        Authors         : Ray Bellis
                          Stuart Cheshire
                          John Dickinson
                          Sara Dickinson
                          Allison Mankin
                          Tom Pusateri
	Filename        : draft-bellis-dnsop-session-signal-02.txt
	Pages           : 13
	Date            : 2016-07-28

Abstract:
   The EDNS(0) Extension Mechanism for DNS [RFC6891] is explicitly
   defined to only have "per-message" semantics.  This document defines
   a new Session Signaling Opcode used to carry persistent "per-session"
   type-length-values (TLVs), and defines an initial set of TLVs used to
   manage session timeouts and termination.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bellis-dnsop-session-signal/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bellis-dnsop-session-signal-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bellis-dnsop-session-signal-02

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Ray Bellis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:28:49 +0100

Notwithstanding the ongoing Call for Adoption, we've just posted a
further update to this draft which addresses some of the comments
already received, and also removes the explicit "Start Session" TLV in
favour of just using the "Idle Timeout" TLV to request a "long-lived
session".

Ray

---

From: Bob Harold <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:02:18 -0400

> favour of just using the "Idle Timeout" TLV to request a "long-lived
 Just my thoughts - what seemed 'normal' 10 years ago seems terribly slow
now, so I hate to specify what is "short" or "long" times in a long-lived
document.

2.  Terminology - "session" says:
"The connection between client and server is persistent and relatively
long-lived (i.e. minutes or hours, rather than seconds)."

I am thinking that even 'seconds' could be long-lived.  Would it be better
to say that a session could be "long-lived" in terms of "time or number of
packets or round trips" ?

4.2.1. Idle Timeout
"It is not required that the Idle Timeout TLV be used in every session.
While many Session Signaling operations (such as DNS Push Notifications
[I-D.ietf-dnssd-push]) will be used in conjunction with a long-lived
connection, this is not required, and in some cases the default 30-second
timeout may be perfectly appropriate."

I would be interested in the list discussing whether there should be a
default time or not.  Would it make sense to leave the default timeout up
to the server, and always send an Idle Timeout request if a 'long-lived'
session is desired?  I might be wrong, but am curious what others think.

-- 
Bob Harold