> On 16 Feb 2023, at 15:40, Masataka Ohta <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Mark Andrews wrote: > >> The only part of RFC 1035 that actually mentions a value is 4.1.2 and no >> it doesn’t prohibit other values. > > No, of course. See my second mail of the thread. > > Masataka Ohta
Your second message describes a standard query. > 1034: > > 3.7.1. Standard queries > > A standard query specifies a target domain name (QNAME), query type > (QTYPE), and query class (QCLASS) and asks for RRs which match. > > which *DID* not preclude inverse queries with QDCOUNT=0 and responses > to them with QDCOUNT>1 as is stated in 1035: > > When the response to an inverse query contains one or more QNAMEs, > > Anyway, w.r.t. letency, it is meaningless to have standard > queries with QDCOUNT>1. > > Masataka Ohta It does not prohibit extended query forms be they a different QDCOUNT for QUERY, a new opcode which supports multiple queries. If the server only support standard queries for opcode QUERY and receives a request with QDCOUNT != 1 there are error codes in STD13 to indicate that the request is not understood. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
