On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 00:22, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
> 1035 clearly allows QDCOUNT>1 for responses
> to IQUERY and 1034 clearly specifies QDCOUNT=1 for standard
> queries and responses.
It sounds like you agree with the archaeology and the proposed clarification in
the draft.
> There is no amb
Ray Bellis wrote:
Notwithstanding an implementation apparently getting by in the DNSSD
space, I remain convinced that QDCOUNT > 1 has no place in the global
DNS and that RFC 1035's ambiguity on the matter needs clarification.
No, not at all. 1035 clearly allows QDCOUNT>1 for responses
to IQUE
(as a chair)
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 9:09 PM Joe Abley wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 21:01, Ted Lemon 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
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 21:01, Ted Lemon 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 i
No, my main objection to the current draft is that it’s dismissing the
problem I raised. I don’t think qdcount > 1 makes sense on the public
internet either.
I also think talking about dns messages that are not asking questions and
have different qdcounts just confuses the issue.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2
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
Hi George,
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 19:37, George Michaelson 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 th
purely administratively, I'd like to understand how the WG chairs and
AD intend dealing with fundamentally opposed drafts.
I would think that a formalism here might be needed: if we discuss A
and not B and reject A, have we implicitly accepted B? And vice-versa?
Do we actually need to discuss bot
On 17/02/2023 20:58, Ted Lemon wrote:
OpenThread. It’s on GitHub.
Notwithstanding an implementation apparently getting by in the DNSSD
space, I remain convinced that QDCOUNT > 1 has no place in the global
DNS and that RFC 1035's ambiguity on the matter needs clarification.
To that end, Jo
Given the uneasy history with firewall implementors, I think it would be best
to expand the document to explicitly say somewhere that messages with
QDCOUNT=0 are valid. The assumption is implicit in the document, but I've
already lost faith in humanity :).
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@isc
10 matches
Mail list logo
