Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Aug 2, 2018, at 9:31 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > That does clean up quite a few things; thank you for putting in the effort > to makme the broader change! (Do we care that we no longer talk about SRV > discovery? I don't think I do, just wanted to check...) I don't think we care, but we're

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 10:53:57AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > > > We specifically didn’t want to reference DoH since HTTP is unsuitable > > for long lived connections and DSO wouldn’t apply here. We didn’t want to > > imply that DoH was

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ted, Those clarifications look good. Thanks, Tom > On Aug 2, 2018, at 10:53 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Benjamin Kaduk > wrote: > > We specifically didn’t want to reference DoH since HTTP is unsuitable for > > long lived connections

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > We specifically didn’t want to reference DoH since HTTP is unsuitable > for long lived connections and DSO wouldn’t apply here. We didn’t want to > imply that DoH was suitable by referencing it. > > Hmm. I think DoH is clearly a non-UDP

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 03:53:57PM -0400, Tom Pusateri wrote: > > > > On Jul 27, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > > > > > -- > > DISCUSS: > > --

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Aug 1, 2018, at 7:17 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote: > Might not hurt to also just mention this in the doc as a reminder for the > reader... Good point. I have made the following change: The format for DSO messages ({{format}}) differs somewhat from the traditional DNS message format

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Might not hurt to also just mention this in the doc as a reminder for the reader... > Am 31.07.2018 um 22:25 schrieb Benjamin Kaduk : > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 04:14:41PM -0400, Tom Pusateri wrote: >> >> >>> On Jul 31, 2018, at 3:53 PM, Tom Pusateri wrote: >>> If the RCODE is

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 04:14:41PM -0400, Tom Pusateri wrote: > > > > On Jul 31, 2018, at 3:53 PM, Tom Pusateri wrote: > > > >> > >> If the RCODE is set to any value other than NOERROR (0) or DSOTYPENI > >> ([TBA2] tentatively 11), then the client MUST assume that the server > >> does

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Jul 31, 2018, at 4:14 PM, Tom Pusateri wrote: > My co-authors reminded me about the TCP framing for DNS which gives the > length of the DNS message so it can easily be skipped so this isn’t a problem. And just as an additional data point, I just now pointed my DNSSD Discovery Relay

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On Jul 31, 2018, at 3:53 PM, Tom Pusateri wrote: > >> >> If the RCODE is set to any value other than NOERROR (0) or DSOTYPENI >> ([TBA2] tentatively 11), then the client MUST assume that the server >> does not implement DSO at all. In this case the client is permitted >> to

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On Jul 27, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines.

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Ben, hi all, as you summoned an TSV AD... > Am 27.07.2018 um 17:24 schrieb Benjamin Kaduk : > > I should probably leave this to my (transport-area?) colleagues to discuss > further, but I'm not sure that the interaction of this mechanism with > high-RTT connections is fully covered -- for

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Mirja, On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 08:11:52PM +0200, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote: > Hi Ben, hi all, > > as you summoned an TSV AD... > > > Am 27.07.2018 um 17:24 schrieb Benjamin Kaduk : > > > > I should probably leave this to my (transport-area?) colleagues to discuss > > further, but I'm

[DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer