On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 08:51, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote:
> It’s hard to see how the way that qdcount >1 was “standardized” (by word of
> mouth without any document) was in any sense healthy, unfortunately.
I'm not convinced that 1034/5 really allow QDCOUNT > 1, even if they left that
door temptingly open. But we know that those are old documents that lack
normative clarity. What the RFCs do or don't allow is not always the end of the
story, not all open doors lead where you expect, etc.
That you can't fully derive the nature of the DNS protocol from documents in
the IETF alone is surely not news to anybody. However, this is also tribal
knowledge and also not written down and therefore probably not very apparent to
people from other tribes. Whether this is healthy is a matter of perspective, I
guess.
It will be interesting to find out whether using QDCOUNT > 1 in practice is
useful.
Joe
>>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
