Fujiwara edit #39
Closed
Fujiwara edit #39
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Normative reference: refered from main part Informative reference: refered from Appendix
vixie
requested changes
Feb 17, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the REMOVE for path MTU discovery is the only controversial part of this commit. we must leave open the possibility that some day in the future the old ethernet frame size limit (1500) will be considered too absurd, and the network will evolve beyond it. perhaps we can change "can be" to "might be"? otherwise this specification can be referenced to bolster the cast against such evolution.
R9,10,12: added text to describe the upper limit.
|
Changed: One of Robert Wilton's Discuss: R8. UDP requestors MAY retry -> SHOULD |
|
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: ***@***.***>
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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" ?