One example is RFC 9726, Operational Considerations for Use of DNS in
Internet of Things (IoT) Devices. In Section 3.1, it says the following
(requiring TC check and conditionally repeating the query before doing
validation):
> Failure can also occur if there are more addresses than what will
conveniently fit into
> a DNS reply. The reply will be marked as truncated. (If DNSSEC
resolution will be done,
> then the entire RR must be retrieved over TCP (or using a larger
EDNS(0) size) before being validated.)
Another is the multi-qtype draft. In -07, Section 3.2.2 says the
following, which introduces branching logic (no need to have a
conditional for when to stop processing the query if you never need to
truncate):
> If this initial response results in truncation (TC=1) then the
additional queries
> specified in the MQTYPE-Query option MUST NOT be processed.
Thanks,
Tommy
On 7/6/25 13:54, Tobias Fiebig wrote:
Moin,
On Sun, 2025-07-06 at 14:36 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
“ These complications can be avoided by assuming Classic DNS over TCP
is the only form of Classic DNS that new protocols need to
accommodate.”
This is not how protocols using DNS work. You can’t say “new”
protocols must use only a specific flavour of DNS transport as
it’s mostly not up to the new protocol or application how DNS is
resolved.
This is at least 10 years too soon.
Hrm, I am somewhat torn on this.
I think what would help getting this discussion further would be some
(recent) examples of things that explicitly accommodated for DNSoUDP
transport.
With best regards,
Tobias
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list --dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email todnsop-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
