On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 21:01, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
> No, my main objection to the current draft is that it’s dismissing the
> problem I raised.
Could you restate the problem?
You mentioned that you thought the ambiguity in 1035 was a problem; that's what
this draft is addressing. I believe Ray is prepared to resurrect his EDNS(0)
approach to multiple questions in the same query; I thought that was the other
problem.
> I don’t think qdcount > 1 makes sense on the public internet either.
Cool.
> I also think talking about dns messages that are not asking questions and
> have different qdcounts just confuses the issue.
Ok, that's reasonable feedback. I thought it was useful to anticipate the
question of what to do with other opcodes and to demonstrate why they don't
suffer from the same ambiguity.
Joe
>>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
