Stephane and all, On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:19:55 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 03:39:33AM -0400, > Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote > a message of 36 lines which said: > > > The WGLC ended on this, and there was strong consensus to move this > > document forward. > > Can you clarify what was the resolution for the problem of matching > replies to questions? I believe that most people (like me) are happy > with the ID+QNAME+QCLASS+transport_tuple of > <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/YCkm0bc3c0XjnU71kyGU8V8SGZg> > but it seems we may have at least a dissent > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/egQ4zEMacf_JmohgNNguOBXjVJA> Sara's proposal does seem to take into account Mark's concern, since she specified using the QNAME/QCLASS/QTYPE only if they are present in the reply. I guess Mark's argument might be that since we have to take into account the ID-only case, why not add extra code complexity to deal with ID+QNAME+QCLASS+QTYPE matching? I have no strong feelings either way on this, so (like Stephane) I am happy with the proposed matching. Cheers, -- Shane _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
