On 06/07/2016 10:09, fujiw...@jprs.co.jp wrote:
> We need summaries of previous discussions, > and need to consider why many idea stopped. > > * For the draft, > > Using unstructured data (TXT format) is not good. > > I agree query name restriction (Additional records MUST be leaf > records at the same node in the DNS tree). > > I think the multiple queries in one request is not related to DNSSEC > and TCP connection. They are separated elements. > > * My idea > > I prefer multiple query sections (with some restrictions) > and merged answers. > > multiple query examples may be > NAME A + NAME AAAA + MX > NAME A + NAME AAAA + _443._tcp.NAME TLSA > NAME A + NAME AAAA + _sip._udp.NAME SRV + _sips._tcp.NAME SRV + ... > > Many people may dislike QDCOUNT != 1. > EDNS0 option which contain additional query section may be possible. and there's my idea (draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes-02) which only permits a single QNAME, but supports additional QTYPEs via an EDNS0 option. Ray _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
