Med: WGLC Comments on Frag

[gorryfair]

• Glad to see that FRAG use is now "limited" and even with a limit lower than what was suggested in [1]

• However, this text seems to not condition the "able to generate..." frag to the limit set in Section 11.4:

  An endpoint supporting UDP options MUST support those marked with
  a "*" above: EOL, NOP, APC, FRAG, MDS, MRDS, REQ, and RES. This
  includes both recognizing and being able to generate these options
  if configured to do so. These are called "must-support" options.

Adding a note would be helpful.

• I suggest to cite DNSSEC given that this was the main driver for the FRAG option. It is better to highlight that.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/wholRDLrBiSt0URtRmZ7kY8ixSg/

(Added by GF during WGLC)

[Mike-Heard]

• I suggest to cite DNSSEC given that this was the main driver for the FRAG option. It is better to highlight that.

Zahed Sarker has also stated "I agree it would useful to record this usecase." See:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/xC4M6R0nAmSLgjC-2yGgffk37YI/

and Issue #42. One of my action items is to write a short draft. More to come.

[Mike-Heard]

• I suggest to cite DNSSEC given that this was the main driver for the FRAG option. It is better to highlight that.

Zahed Sarker has also stated "I agree it would useful to record this usecase." See:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/xC4M6R0nAmSLgjC-2yGgffk37YI/

and Issue #42. One of my action items is to write a short draft. More to come.

That draft has now been posted; see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-heard-dnsop-udp-opt-large-dns-responses. Comments have been requested from DNSOP.

[Mike-Heard]

• I suggest to cite DNSSEC given that this was the main driver for the FRAG option. It is better to highlight that.

Zahed Sarker has also stated "I agree it would useful to record this usecase." [ ... ] One of my action items is to write a short draft. More to come.

That draft has now been posted; see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-heard-dnsop-udp-opt-large-dns-responses. Comments have been requested from DNSOP.

DNSOP interest has not been overwhelming, to say the least. To date there has been only one comment, and it was not favorable. See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/EhUq8tZF8Qm-iZk4eUAnjsCGXUg/ and subsequent messages in the thread. Additionally, as noted in the Discussion section of the draft, it is not a slam-dunk that UDP fragmentation would save significant resources compared to fallback to TCP. Based on that, it's not clear that it is appropriate to highlight this use case. The only other UDP request/response protocol with potentially large responses that comes to mind is SNMP, and I don't think that is much used anymore.