Subject: RE: [Speermint] comments ondraft-creighton-khandpur-speermint-srv-naptr-use-00

From: "Khandpur, Gaurav" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:16:03 -0400

Hi Andy,

Thanks you for your valuable feedback. See comments inline...[GKH]

>I have a few comments on
draft-creighton-khandpur-speermint-srv-naptr-use->00.

>1) Figure 1 incorrectly describes how DNS works. 
[GKH] Fig 1 is a high level view, can you point what part is incorrect.

> In addition, wording in 
>3.2 "SPP2 MUST return at least three [NAPTR] records" makes the same 
>mistake.  DNS servers don't consult SIP proxies for DNS records, nor do
SIP 
>proxies return DNS records.

[GKH] Thanks for catching this.

>2) MUST "SIPS+D2T" does not apply to indirect peering.  Why is this 
>exception made?  Shouldn't the advice be, "SIPS+D2T" MUST be returned
in >the 
>absence of any security at a lower layer?  Either way, there should be
text 
>explaining the reasoning.

[GKH] Noted. The reasoning I am including is that the domain validation
at layer 5 in SIPS over TLS will fail for indirect/transit peering, so
we not mandating "SIPS+D2T" SIP over TLS will still work though.

>3) Section 5 indicates that TTLs for SRV records should be 1 hour, 
>apparently because they are more dynamic.  There is no explanation of
why 
>they would be more dynamic.  I have my suspicions, but a BCP ought to
>really 
>explain the reasons behind the recommendations. 

[GKH] Agreed. We can gain some consensus at the interim on the
recommended values. 

>The same goes for the MUST 
>as it is applied to the weight of the SRV record.

[GKH] I am removing the statement that recommends use of different
weights of SRV records with equal priority as that applies to stateless
proxies (section 4.4 of rfc3263). In our BCP we are using Stateful
proxies.

>4) There is no mention of having DNS servers returning A records with
the 
>SRV response in order to cut down on round trips. 

[GKH] Noted and added.

> Nor is there discussion 
>on using EDNS0 to alleviate truncation.  Finally, there is no mention
of >DNSSEC.

[GKH] Lets talk more on this at the interim.

>-andy

[GKH] Thanks again. Please provide your comments.
_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint