Dick Franks wrote:
>> So, there is no specification to mention queries with
>> QDCOUNT>1, either informatively, optionaly or normatively.
>> Then, 3425 titled "Obsoleting IQUERY" updated 1035.
>> As such, after 3425, QDCOUNT nomatively must always be 1.
The last statement is informatively and normatively mistaken.
The counterexample is to be found in RFC8490(5.4):
Not up to date. OK. Thanks. But, my statements are enough to deny
the original statement by Ted as if 1034 had admitted standard
queries with QDCOUNT>1 and another statement by Joe:
> But we know that those are old documents that lack normative
> clarity.
w.r.t. normative status of standard queries.
As Mark and I stated:
It does not prohibit extended query forms be they a different
QDCOUNT for QUERY, a new opcode which supports multiple queries. > Nor does it
prohibit protocol extentions to allow standard
> queries have QDCOUNT>1,
modifying 1034/5 is fine but possibility/existence of such
modifications can not be a supporting fact for a false
statement that 1034 had admitted standard queries with
QDCOUNT>1.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
