Edward Lewis <edward.le...@icann.org> wrote: > The question I keep asking myself is: How is this different from a > client just hitting a server with all anticipated questions at one time?
Me too :-) I can see an advantage to improving the case where the client can't predict all the questions in advance, e.g. when the subsequent questions depend on a SRV target or an SPF include: directive. A big problem with additional data at the moment is a client doesn't know whether an absence of data (no AAAA records) means the data doesn't exist, so it still has to make followup queries to double check. A DNSSEC proof of nonexistence could help. > Why not just ask for qtype ANY all the time, for data sets owned by the > same domain name. Doesn't work reliably through caches, or with draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any :-) Also, ANY doesn't actually improve latency compared to concurrent queries. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr8h punycode Southeast Biscay: Variable 2 or 3, becoming northwesterly 4 or 5 for a time. Slight or moderate. Occasional showers. Good. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
