search

ietf-wg-dnsop / draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation

0 stars 1 forks source link

Fujiwara edit #39

Closed kfujiwara closed 6 months ago

kfujiwara commented 7 months ago

Most of the comments are updated. I cannot decide about the following comments.

SECDIR review of draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation-16 |Section 1. Introduction, last paragraph, page 3: The first sentence is fine. I |don't understand just what the rest of the paragraph is saying or why it is |useful. A "path MTU" can be "obtained" (not set?) through "static |configuration, server routing hints, ..."? Is this configuration/hint |affecting transit devices so as to limit/expand the path MTU? What's going on

I would like to change the last paragraph in the Introduction: remove the second and following sentences.

Murray Kucherawy's Discuss | * Define "large / small" better.

I cannot define.

| "Protocol compliance considerations"

| * Would be nice to see reporting recommendations, perhaps that make | the failure an internal cost for the failing component?... would not | want a repeat of dmarc though.

I cannot rewrite

Robert Wilton's Discuss R8. DNS responses may be dropped by IP fragmentation. Upon a timeout, to avoid resolution failures, UDP requestors MAY retry using TCP or UDP with a smaller EDNS requestor's maximum UDP payload size per local policy.
Again, I think that this document would be clearer if this was a SHOULD rather
than a MAY.

Can we change the "MAY" as "SHOULD" ?

kfujiwara commented 6 months ago

Changed: One of Robert Wilton's Discuss: R8. UDP requestors MAY retry -> SHOULD Added text: One of Murray Kucherawy's Discuss: Define "large / small" better.

vixie commented 6 months ago

Thanks

p vixie

On Feb 26, 2024 02:48, Kazunori Fujiwara @.***> wrote:

@kfujiwara requested your review on: #39 Fujiwara edit.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because your review was requested. Message ID: @.***>