Re: [IAB] Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx:
> Hi Paul,

> and thanks for your review.

>> The requirements in Section 2 should be clearly stated as being
>> appropriate only for the authoritative name service. The last bullet
>> says this, but the first bullet says "MUST implement core DNS
>> [RFC1035] and clarifications to the DNS [RFC2181]." That could be
>> interpreted as saying that the root name service must follow all the
>> rules of RFC 1035, not just those that apply to authoritative name
>> servers, and there are a bunch that should not be required. Consider
>> changing that sentence fragment to "MUST implement core DNS
>> [RFC1035] and clarifications to the DNS [RFC2181], as an
>> authoritative name service”.

> I think this seems reasonable. Marc?

(Stepping in as "the other author".)

I agree it makes sense. I'm working on text for -03.

>> Another bullet in Section 2 may be problematic:
>> MUST generate checksums when sending UDP datagrams and MUST verify
>> checksums when receiving UDP datagrams containing a non-zero
>> checksum.
>> What happens if a root name server receives a UDP datagram with a
>> bad checksum? It fails verification, but then what? This sentence
>> *might* incorporate the following clarification, but I'm not sure if
>> it actually matches the intent.
>> MUST generate checksums when sending UDP datagrams, and MUST
>> ignore a received UDP datagram containing a non-zero checksum
>> when that checksum does not verify.
>> If that's not the intent, I'm not sure what "verify" means without a follow-on action.

> I would not like to specify protocol in this document. It would be
> best if one of the referenced documents already said this, and we
> could simply add a reference. Do they?

I agree to keep protocol spec out of this document. The document should
only refer to other documents and say "these (parts of) documuments
SHOULD/MUST be followed".

If there are docs that specify what a host should do with such
"malchecksummed" packets, I'm happy to put a pointer in there. If not,
I'd rather avoid discussing it in this draft.

				Cheers,
				  /Liman
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc.               !  E-mail: liman@xxxxxxxxx
# Senior Systems Specialist             !  Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12
# Netnod Internet Exchange, Stockholm   !  http://www.netnod.se/
#----------------------------------------------------------------------






[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]