On 29/04/2016 02:01, Jiankang Yao wrote: > Dear all, > > We submit a draft about "A DNS Query including A Main Question > with Accompanying Questions". > > Any comments are welcome.
I am unconvinced that the ability to specify multiple QNAMEs offers any benefits and can't think of any good use cases where the client knows a priori what the other QNAMEs might be. [ I don't consider looking up example.com and www.example.com at the same time to be 'good' ]. The examples given all appear to show a recursor -> authority query, but I see no hint in the draft about whether it's only for that path or also for stub -> recursor. My own draft in this area (draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes) where only a single QNAME is supported and a single RCODE is returned has IMHO far clearer semantics. It's also appropriate both for stub -> recursor and for recursor -> authority. Ray p.s. I noticed a dangling reference to RFC1321 (MD5) ? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
