Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Edward Lewis wrote:
At 9:26 -0500 5/10/04, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Nobody should call it qtype=*, because its not, and because it perpetuates
the confusion.
I have to issue a "my fault" here as far as the comment. A qtype of
"*" is referenced in RFC 1034, an as recently as rfc 2929 (IANA
consid's). You're right, Eric, "it's not", but it appears in the
documents.
I revised the text a bit to bring out this contradiction:
<section title="Query Type 'ANY' and A/AAAA Records">
<t>QTYPE=* is typically only used for debugging or management
purposes; it is worth keeping in mind that QTYPE=* ("ANY" queries;
note that QTYPE=* is the technically correct, though oxymoronic, term)
literally return any available RRsets, not *all* available RRsets, as
only some of these may be present in the caches. Therefore, to get
both A and AAAA records reliably, two separate queries must be
made.</t>
Does this look good?
I think it's ill-advised to describe a particular resolver behavior in
absolute terms when there is nothing in the specs (as far as I know) to
prevent a future implementation from doing things differently, i.e. from
always returning *all* of the RRsets in response to a QTYPE=* query.
Perhaps it would be better to water down the description with "all known
implementations as of this writing" or something like that...
- Kevin
P.S. In what way is QTYPE=* any more or less "oxymoronic" than QTYPE=ANY?
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
