> From: "Jiankang Yao" <ya...@cnnic.cn> >>* 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 + ... >> > > Dear Fujiwara-san, > > Your points/scenarios fall in the Draft > > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-00.txt
Thanks. I read the draft. It has similar point and different point. I cannot understand the UAQ bit necessity. When a client sends a query with AQ EDNS0 option, if the server knows the AQ EDNS0 option, the server can answer AQ response because the client knows the AQ extension. If the server does not know the AQ EDNS0 option, the server drops the unknown option. Another comment: the response format is very complicated. -- Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <fujiw...@jprs.co.jp> _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
