Moin, On Fri, 2025-11-28 at 11:27 +0100, Philip Homburg wrote: > > Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis-07 (Ends 2025-12- > > 04) > > Sorry for not reading this document carefully at an earlier time. > I have one editiorial comment that should be easy to fix. Thanks! Will implement.
The PR (with diff addressing your specific comments) is here: https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis/pull/30/files > But also one recommendation (that occurs in two places) that I > disagree with. Switching that from RECOMMENDED to MAY would solve the > problem. I will switch this to MAY. > Otherwise, I think this draft is in good condition and should > advance. Thanks! > So it should say that resolution fails when all name servers are only > accessible over transports that the resolver cannot use. Good point; I changed the language here to refer to name server sets for referral, and now explicitly state what you suggested: A resolver that tries to look up a name starts out at the root, and follows referrals until it is referred to a name server set that is authoritative for the name. If it is referred to a name server set that is, based on the referral, only contains name servers that are exclusively reachable via an IP address family the resolver doe snot support, the resolver is unable to continue DNS resolution. Does this work for you? > Section 3.2. Network Conditions Causing IP Version Related Name Space > Fragmentation > > "It is therefore RECOMMENDED that DNS servers set an MSS of no more > than 1388 octets for TCP connections." > > Given that the intended status is a BCP, is there any operational > experience with this? Other there other TCP-based protocols that > implement this? Personally, I have never seen applications set the > MSS value of a TCP connection. I selected RECOMMENDED here, as it is, essentially, a straight forward extension of the RFC9715 recommendations for TCP. However, I also see your point and will change RECOMMENDED to MAY: > Section 4.1. Guidelines for Authoritative DNS Server Configuration > > "Furthermore, similar to the guidance in [RFC9715], it is RECOMMENDED > that authoritative DNS servers sets an MSS of 1220 in TCP sessions > carrying DNS responses." > > The same comment applies but now the suggested MSS value is > different, so this seems inconsistent. This is a confusion around the different packet sizes suggested by the DNS Flag day and RFC9715. I now switched the text to <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> and also clarified the two MSS values. With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
