> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> >> The DNSOP WG has placed draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes in state >> Candidate for WG Adoption > > Did anyone was brave enough to make a detailed comparison between this > draft and other proposals like draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions? > > (I was thinking myself of writing a draft on a ultra-simple proposal, > allowing QDCOUNT to be > 1 but forcing all QNAMEs to be identical, but > I never got time.)
I prefered QDCOUNT>1 idea, but it mixes results of all queries. We want to know each RCODE and want to separate each answer. # Or, multiple DNS data in one UDP packet is possible. # DNSSEC may soluve the multiple RCODE problem. draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions keeps each RCODE information in EDNS0 data. draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes does not have the problem because the qname is only one. draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses does not have the problem because the main query is one. We would like to compare all idea before proceeding. -- Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <fujiw...@jprs.co.jp> _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
