On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 11:27, Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 08:51, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > It’s hard to see how the way that qdcount >1 was “standardized” (by word > of mouth without any document) was in any sense healthy, unfortunately. > > > I'm not convinced that 1034/5 really allow QDCOUNT > 1, even if they left > that door temptingly open. But we know that those are old documents that > lack normative clarity. What the RFCs do or don't allow is not always the > end of the story, not all open doors lead where you expect, etc. >
Sure, I guess. That you can't fully derive the nature of the DNS protocol from documents > in the IETF alone is surely not news to anybody. However, this is also > tribal knowledge and also not written down and therefore probably not very > apparent to people from other tribes. Whether this is healthy is a matter > of perspective, I guess. > Actually this is exactly the windmill at which I am tilting. If we haven’t written it down in a spec, it is unreasonable to expect random implementers to learn about it some other way. It will be interesting to find out whether using QDCOUNT > 1 in practice is > useful. > It clearly is, in the sense that someone is using it and it keeps coming up. :) >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
