On Tue, 4 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Does this need to be stated? As Rob explained, QTYPE=* is a beast
> > that's not really used except by folks playing with "dig" and
> > "nslookup"; the resolvers don't use them, so we might not need to care
> > about them?
>
> dig is the -only- diagnostic tool available so if you
> drop or ignore QTYPE=* then you are going to hamper
> DNS operators in their abilities to identify and correct
> DNS problems.
Isn't the use of QTYPE=* causing more problems than its worth, being
unreliable and all that? Or is it's usefulness precisely restricted
to identifying what _is_ in the caches (and what is not)?
Note that I was only speaking in the context of this particular
document -- and I thought the effect of using QTYPE=* with or without
A or AAAA RRsets is not sufficiently interesting to be covered in this
document. I also noticed that results from QTYPE=* become very
unreliable if you'd want to use it to get e.g., AAAA records for the
name where caches only have A records, hence it's not being so useful.
So, let me ask the WG --
1) Should the problems (relavant to AAAA records) and QTYPE=* be
covered in the document?
2) Should the problems of QTYPE=* be covered in a separate new
document ("QTYPE=* Considered Unreliable" ? :) instead? Or if
not, would an applicability statement be in order?
3) Should we more or less try to deprecate QTYPE=*, as it does not
produce reliable results?
Based on this, I personally think 1) probably, 2) fine by me if
someone would volunteer, 3) yes.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
