On Jan 16, 2024, at 16:46, Wessels, Duane <dwess...@verisign.com> wrote: > > I made a pass through the document and have the following feedback.
Thanks! >> Priming is described in Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 of [RFC1034]. The >> scenario used in that description, that of a recursive server that is >> also authoritative, is no longer as common. > > Since RFC 1034 doesn't use the term "priming" maybe it would be good to be > more descriptive here? For example: > > Priming is described in Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 of [RFC1034], where > it is referred to as a "safety belt" or part of the SBELT structure. Yep, already got that from earlier comments. > >> Research shows that after those addresses change, some resolvers >> never get the new addresses. > > If you feel like this would benefit from a reference, > https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/24/contributions/378/ is one such that > would fit. Sounds good. Let's hope DNS-OARC prevents URL rot. >> Root server >> identifier and address changes are the main reasons that resolvers >> need to do priming instead of just going from a configured list to >> get a full and accurate list of root servers. > > I find "to get a full..." at the end here to be confusing. Maybe a slight > reordering and rewording? > > Root server identifier and address changes are the main reasons that > resolvers need to use priming to get a full and accurate list of root > servers, instead of just using a statically configured list. Excellent, yes. > >> A priming query is a DNS query used to get the root server >> information in a resolver. > > I find the above imprecise. Perhaps: > > A priming query is a DNS query whose response provides root server > names and addresses. Yep. > >> If a resolver chooses to pre-fetch the root NS RRset before that >> RRset has expired in its cache, it needs to choose whether to use the >> addresses for the root NS RRset that it already has in its cache or >> to use the addresses it has in its configuration. Such a resolver >> SHOULD send queries to the addresses in its cache in order to reduce >> the chance of delay due to out-of-date addresses in its >> configuration. > > This section doesn't say what a non-pre-fetching resolver should do. > Does it imply or mean that a non-pre-fetching resolver can only re-prime > from the original configuration? No, it just doesn't say. This was discussed during the run-up to RFC 8109, and there was not consensus on a SHOULD for those resolvers. >> Resolver software SHOULD NOT expect 13 NS RRs because > > This is somewhat out of the blue. There is no prior discussion on the number > of > root server identifiers. Although there is immediately after... Already fixed from an earlier comment. > >> If the Additional section is truncated, there is no expectation that >> the TC bit in the response will be set to 1. At the time that this >> document is written, many of the root servers are not setting the TC >> bit on responses with a truncated Additional section. > > I think I tried to argue about this phrasing before, but looks like I was > unsuccessful. > IMO truncated should mean TC=1 and TC=1 should mean truncated. I don't think > its okay to say that a message can be truncated but TC bit not set. RFC 1035 > says: > > TC TrunCation - specifies that this message was truncated > due to length greater than that permitted on the > transmission channel. > > It would be better to use "partial" instead of "truncated" here. e.g.: > > If the Additional section contains a partial set of A / AAAA RRsets, there > is no expectation that > the TC bit in the response will be set to 1. At the time that this > document is written, many of the root servers are not setting the TC > bit on responses when not all A / AAAA RRsets fit in the Additional section. This too was caught in an earlier review, and is now "If the Additional section omits some root server addresses..." --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
