Oh, I assumed Ted was moving to a formalism which explicitly authorises QDCOUNT > 1 in the public space, and leverages it.
If we're not heading there, and there is only a document heading to QDCOUNT is 1 and evermore shall be so, there's no conflict. -G On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:55 AM Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote: > > Hi George, > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 19:37, George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> wrote: > > purely administratively, I'd like to understand how the WG chairs and > AD intend dealing with fundamentally opposed drafts. > > > There's only one draft here, as far as I know. > > Ted pointed out a DNS implementation in OpenThread that is based on a > different interpretation of 1035 than (I think) the more usual understanding > reflected in DNS implementation in use in the public DNS. The purpose of this > draft is to highlight some problems with that interpretation and to propose a > consensus interpretation of 1035 (a clarification) so that other people might > avoid them. > > Implementations are free to make whatever choices they want regardless of > what any working group says. OpenThread's approach might work perfectly well > in a constrained environment where the DNS servers receiving queries with > QDCOUNT > 1 are built to suit IoT devices' particular requirements and > assumptions. That doesn't make it a good idea for the protocol in general. > > This draft is not about OpenThread's particular situation; it's about the > base protocol. > > I don't see any conflict, here. > > > Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
