On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote: > On 18 Aug 2016, at 11:29, Marek Vavruša wrote: > >> Or SRV. > > > I disagree that a user, when asking for a SRV record, doesn't know that it > is likely that they would want the results for the information that comes > back in the RDATA.
No question about that, but she doesn't know what the target name is. Expressing "I want SRV type for this name, and A/AAAA for the SRV record targets" is doable, at the cost of additional complexity on both client and server. >> These are cases where authoritative/resolver adding >> interesting records as additionals works better. >> Authoritatives have been doing that with extra SOA/NS in authority for >> a while (for positive answers), but now >> resolvers can hardly use them if these records are not secure. > > > Security of additional data is important, but orthogonal to what can be > asked for or pushed. > >> Regardless of which draft is going to be adopted, > > > This thread is not about "which draft", it is about what is needed. Thank you, I should have phrased that differently. > --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop