Ray Bellis writes: > This is just a "keep alive" so as to keep this draft in consideration as > one of the multiple solutions in this problem space while DNSOP decides > whether this is a problem worth solving. > > I still think it's the most elegant of those proposed ;-)
I whole-heartedly agree, as Ray's idea was the basic conclusion I'd arrived at independently. I was going to propose something very similar (with only minor differences in details) until I found out that I'd somehow overlooked his previous draft. Note that I'm saying this even though I am also now working with Warren and Wes on the multiple-response draft, which I suspect is one of the other proposed solutions that Ray implies above. I believe that multiple-response and multi-qtypes solve similar but somewhat different problems. As Wes observed during a conversation last week, the former is for when the authoritative server believes it knows what records you're going to want next (and even then can't effectively signal the absence of any particular record). The latter is driven by the client knowing just types it'll want to know about for a given qname, and indicates explicitly what the existence of each is. Multi-qtypes is also far easier to implement and will be much more useful much more quickly. It can roll out in resolvers and authorities incrementally without depending on DNSSEC and with far fewer security concerns. At a recent industry meeting I announcement my intention to ask Ray to revive it and was met with fairly widespread support from both authoritative and recursive operators. I'm strongly behind multi-qtypes and will be proselytizing for it as well as contributing text. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
