> Warren Kumari <mailto:[email protected]> > Tuesday, January 13, 2015 8:19 PM > ... I'm surprised that no-one has yet commented on the 'Let's just > co-opt the Z bit for this' - I'm guessing that folk are not sure if > I'm kidding or not, and are scared to ask :-) W
i think you're not kidding, but that you'll ignore input you consider "grumpy", so i wasn't going to mention any specific defect. instead i'll ask: what's your use case? do you, or your employer, or indeed anybody anywhere, need this feature? for what? i've long believed that just as A and AAAA are optional additional-data in MX and SRV and NS responses, so it should be that A should be optional additional-data for AAAA responses, and AAAA should be optional additional-data for A responses. those are use cases i understand, and where the protocol impact is negligible, as in, it could be an FYI. what have you got for "multiple-responses" in terms of motivation for the complexity of a protocol change? (if this is what you meant when you said you were expecting grumpy responses, feel free to ignore me.) -- Paul Vixie
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
