On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote:
> > > On 29/04/2016 02:01, Jiankang Yao wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > We submit a draft about "A DNS Query including A Main Question > > with Accompanying Questions". > > > > Any comments are welcome. > > I am unconvinced that the ability to specify multiple QNAMEs offers any > benefits and can't think of any good use cases where the client knows a > priori what the other QNAMEs might be. [ I don't consider looking up > example.com and www.example.com at the same time to be 'good' ]. > > The examples given all appear to show a recursor -> authority query, but > I see no hint in the draft about whether it's only for that path or also > for stub -> recursor. > > My own draft in this area (draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes) where only > a single QNAME is supported and a single RCODE is returned has IMHO far > clearer semantics. It's also appropriate both for stub -> recursor and > for recursor -> authority. > > Ray > I am assuming that the benefits here are: - reduced number of packets - reduced total bytes - possibly reduced round trips Would it be possible to get most of these benefits with a combination of: - tcp + pipeline - pipeline multiple queries with less packets - tcp-fast-open - avoid extra round trip If cookies are longer-lived than tcp sessions, could we use tcp-fast-open with cookies to avoid spoofed source addresses? If all of that would work together, it would be more flexible than either of the above drafts. But I am probably missing something. -- Bob Harold
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
