Subject: [v6ops] AD review of draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis.

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:24:10 -0400

Hi,

I've finished my AD review of draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis.

I have only one comment / question:
Section 3.  Hostname Resolution Query Handling
" If the AAAA response is received within the Resolution Delay period,
the client immediately starts the IPv6 connection attempt.  If, at the
end of the Resolution Delay period, the AAAA response has not been
received but the A response has been received, ..."

So, let's say that at time T I fire off my queries, and 5ms later I
get back a valid A record, and a NOERROR/NODATA response to the AAAA
query (saying that there is no AAAA record) -- what do I do?
I'm assuming that I just connect with the A record immediately, but
this isn't actually stated anywhere (or, if it is, I missed it) - this
seems like a common case, and should at least be mentioned.

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Tommy Pauly <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:15:08 -0700

Hi Warren,

Thanks for the review!

You're absolutely correct that a negative query response counts to stop any delays, etc. I don't think this is pointed out explicitly. The way I would propose solving this would be to clarify in Section 3 around the parts that read "if the AAAA query returns first" and "If the A query returns first", that any the responses we are referring to include positive answers as well as negative answers like NODATA. Does that sound good to you?

Thanks,
Tommy

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 7:24 AM, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:05:14 -0400

> You're absolutely correct that a negative query response counts to stop any delays, etc. I don't think this is pointed out explicitly. The way I would propose solving this would be to clarify in Se…

WFM.

Please let me know once you've submitted a new version and I'll start IETF LC.

W

---

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:43:54 -0700

Hi Warren, and thanks for your review.

We've submitted -05 to clarify handling of negative DNS responses:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05>

The relevant paragraph now reads:
<<
   The RECOMMENDED algorithm proceeds as follows: if a positive AAAA
   response (a response with at least one valid AAAA record) is received
   first, the first IPv6 connection attempt is immediately started.  If
   a positive A response is received first due to reordering, the client
   SHOULD wait for a short time for the AAAA response to ensure
   preference is given to IPv6 (it is common for the AAAA response to
   follow the A response by a few milliseconds).  This delay will be
   referred to as the "Resolution Delay".  The RECOMMENDED value for the
   Resolution Delay is 50 milliseconds.  If a positive AAAA response is
   received within the Resolution Delay period, the client immediately
   starts the IPv6 connection attempt.  If a negative AAAA response (no
   error, no data) is received within the Resolution Delay period or the
   AAAA response has not been received by the end of the Resolution
   Delay period, the client SHOULD proceed to Sorting Addresses
   [Section 4] and staggered connection attempts [Section 5] using any
   IPv4 addresses returned so far.  If the AAAA response arrives while
   these connection attempts are in progress, but before any connection
   has been established, then the newly received IPv6 addresses are
   incorporated into the list of available candidate addresses
   [Section 6] and the process of connection attempts will continue with
   the IPv6 addresses added, until one connection is established.

Thanks,
David Schinazi

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 11:05, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Tommy Pauly <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> Hi Warren,
>> 
>> Thanks for the review!
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>