On 18 Aug 2016, at 7:19, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
On 18 August 2016 at 01:33, william manning
<chinese.apri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
please help me get over the feeling that this argument is founded on
the
same logic as that used by folks who "know" I might want, no NEED
that
extra bit of email in my inbox. As I read it, it sounds like DNS
Server
Spam being "PUSHED" to the Resolver who may or may not want the data.
Pure hyperbole.
Disagree: partial hyperbole.
If a client is given a delegation today, you don't complain because
glue is
supplied.
Agree. But...
It's necessary for the obvious next step.
There is a difference between "don't complain" and "needed". I would not
complain about an Additional with AAAA for an A request, or vice versa.
However, I would complain about "A of our advertising partner because I
think you are about to render an HTML page".
We already have
other records (e.g. SRV) which is many cases have data which are
useless
without a followup query. In what way is it like spam to supply those
data
with the original query?
If I'm making an SRV query, I know I can ask for ("pull" in Tim's
wording) additional info.
Are there QTYPEs that, when I ask for them, I won't know that I should
also ask for the related info?
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
