Re: draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery

Hi Bill,

For most of the responses, I take your suggestions as written, but one
I'll propose a tweak, because I still think s/should/SHOULD/ isn't
quite right in paragraph 1 of 2.5.6, though you do have a point that
it refers to DNS so it can't be from RFC 7450.  (Sorry about that mistaken
claim.)

1.
On 2019-06-14, 17:43, "William Atwood" <[email protected]> wrote:
> For para 1, while the DNS-SD restriction is in 7450, the AMTRELAY RRType
> is introduced in this document, so this is a new requirement. 
> Therefore, I believe that the "should" must be a "SHOULD".

Paragraph 1 of 2.5.6 says:
   A gateway should only send DNS queries with the AMTRELAY RRType or
   the DNS-SD DNS queries for an AMT service as part of starting or
   restarting the discovery process.

I think the construct "SHOULD only" is weird, because really I'm expressing
an expectation that a thing won't happen.

However, "SHOULD NOT send unless" is also a bit weird, because it's not
exactly forbidden to send DNS to keep history or something.

This line of reasoning led me to realize that this paragraph is actually
just completely unnecessary, so how about I cut it instead of changing
should to SHOULD?

OLD:
2.5.6.  Relay Discovery Messages vs. Restarting Discovery

   A gateway should only send DNS queries with the AMTRELAY RRType or
   the DNS-SD DNS queries for an AMT service as part of starting or
   restarting the discovery process.

   However, all AMT relays are required to support handling of Relay
   Discovery messages (e.g. in Section 5.3.3.2 of [RFC7450]).

   So a gateway with an existing connection to a relay can send a Relay
   Discovery message to the unicast address of that AMT relay.  Under

NEW:
2.5.6.  Relay Discovery Messages vs. Restarting Discovery

   All AMT relays are required to support handling of Relay
   Discovery messages (e.g. in Section 5.3.3.2 of [RFC7450]).

   So a gateway with an existing connection to a relay can send a Relay
   Discovery message to the unicast address of that AMT relay.  Under


2.
Reviewing this section made me notice one other spot with a similar issue,
so I'm also changing "recommended" to "RECOMMENDED" in the last paragraph
as well, if there are no objections:
OLD:
   process.  It is recommended for gateways to support the L flag, but
   for gateways that do not support the L flag, sending this message
   during event #3 may help mitigate service degradation when relays
   become unstable.

NEW:
   process.  It is RECOMMENDED for gateways to support the L flag, but
   for gateways that do not support the L flag, sending this message
   during event #3 may help mitigate service degradation when relays
   become unstable.



Thanks much, and please let me know if these edits work for you.

Best regards,
Jake


_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned