(as a chair) On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 9:09 PM Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote:
> 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. > >From my reading last week I thought Ted's point was that 1035 did not say you can not use QDCOUNT > 1. (Ted, if I'm wrong feel free to correct me) I'm a big supporter of being as explicit as we can to prevent ambiguity. I also know if there is such an ambiguity for any length of time, we're going to use such ambiguity for Bad DNS Decisions. We can't help ourselves. > I don’t think qdcount > 1 makes sense on the public internet either. > > > Cool. > This sounds like the road to consensus. > 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. > > When Ray mentioned that dns messages can not ask questions, I encouraged him to document that to be complete. My personal feeling (however misguided) is if we're updating working like 1035, we should be as accurate as possible to leave no ambiguity. Always happy to be told I'm wrong. I personally also have come back around on the multi-qtypes draft. tim
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
