Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

2020 text #102

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 5, 2019
Merged

2020 text #102

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 5, 2019

Conversation

jelu
Copy link
Contributor

@jelu jelu commented May 24, 2019

  • Add 2020 text

Copy link
Contributor

@Habbie Habbie left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good! I made a few suggestions.

index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@jelu
Copy link
Contributor Author

jelu commented May 30, 2019

@pspacek Would 2020 close #88 and #89 ?

@vcunat
Copy link
Contributor

vcunat commented May 30, 2019

I believe so, though the current 2020 text uses quite mild language for TCP/53 support ("should")

@jelu
Copy link
Contributor Author

jelu commented May 30, 2019

@vcunat

I believe so, though the current 2020 text uses quite mild language for TCP/53 support ("should")

I'm not reading it as that and there are only a few "should", if you think it's too mild then please go ahead and change.

index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@pspacek pspacek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good enough for now, I will look at adding web tester for auths in separate PR.

Copy link
Contributor

@vrisk vrisk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These are very minor edits, please feel free to accept or reject them.

index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
For the resolver side it's more or less the same requirement as for the
authoritative, **_honor [RFC 7766](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7766)_**
_(DNS over TCP port 53)_ and use an EDNS buffer size _(~1220 bytes)_ that
will not cause fragmentation. _Remember to check your firewall(s)!_
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we need to split this into:

Resolvers acting as clients should set default EDNS(0) buffer size to 1220 and fall back to TCP...

For resolvers acting as servers, it's more or less ...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please suggest full text.

----------------------------

As a DNS software vendor it is important to be **standards compliant** and
to use a _**default EDNS buffer size** (~1220)_ that will not cause
fragmentation.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No Don't Fragment bit?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think it's usual that DNS software set IP level don't fragment, but if you have examples please add text.

index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@Habbie Habbie left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

After the open questions from @vrisk and @oerdnj are resolved, I think this is ready for publication.

index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.md Show resolved Hide resolved
- Add 2020 text
- Apply suggestions from code review

Co-Authored-By: Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
Co-Authored-By: Vladimír Čunát <v@cunat.cz>
Co-Authored-By: Matthijs Mekking <github@pletterpet.nl>
Co-Authored-By: Ralph Dolmans <ralph@nlnetlabs.nl>
Co-Authored-By: Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Co-Authored-By: Vicky Risk <vicky@isc.org>
Co-Authored-By: Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org>
@jelu jelu merged commit b9eb7f5 into dns-violations:master Jun 5, 2019
@jelu jelu deleted the 2020 branch June 5, 2019 08:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants