To be clear, I am not saying that RFC1034/1035 say that you /can/ use QDCOUNT > 1. I am saying that they do /not/ say that you /can not/ use QDCOUNT > 1.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 5:53 PM Masataka Ohta < [email protected]> wrote: > 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
