Clearly it is not meaningless, or someone wouldn't have done it! :) On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 1:12 AM Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Ted Lemon wrote: > > > FWIW, I don't think it precludes doing queries with QDCOUNT > 1 to > > the cache > > 1034: > > 3.7.1. Standard queries > > A standard query specifies a target domain name (QNAME), query type > (QTYPE), and query class (QCLASS) and asks for RRs which match. > > which *DID* not preclude inverse queries with QDCOUNT=0 and responses > to them with QDCOUNT>1 as is stated in 1035: > > When the response to an inverse query contains one or more QNAMEs, > > Anyway, w.r.t. letency, it is meaningless to have standard > queries with QDCOUNT>1. > > Masataka Ohta > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
