Given the uneasy history with firewall implementors, I think it would be best to expand the document to explicitly say somewhere that messages with QDCOUNT=0 are valid. The assumption is implicit in the document, but I've already lost faith in humanity :).
Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý (He/Him) [email protected] My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. > On 17. 2. 2023, at 17:20, Ray Bellis <[email protected]> wrote: > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-00.txt > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 08:12:18 -0800 > From: [email protected] > To: Joe Abley <[email protected]>, Ray Bellis <[email protected]> > > > A new version of I-D, draft-bellis-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Ray Bellis and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-bellis-dnsop-qdcount-is-one > Revision: 00 > Title: In the DNS, QDCOUNT is (usually) One > Document date: 2023-02-17 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 6 > URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bellis-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-00.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bellis-dnsop-qdcount-is-one/ > Html: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bellis-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-00.html > Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bellis-dnsop-qdcount-is-one > > > Abstract: > This document clarifies the allowable values of the QDCOUNT parameter > in DNS messages with OPCODE = 0 (QUERY) and specifies the required > behaviour when values that are not allowed are encountered. > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
