Subject: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

From: IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 04:42:21 -0700

The DNSOP WG has placed draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes in state
Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)

The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes/

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:56:46 +0200

On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 04:42:21AM -0700,
 IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 11 lines which said:

> Candidate for WG Adoption

Did anyone was brave enough to make a detailed comparison between this
draft and other proposals like draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions?

(I was thinking myself of writing a draft on a ultra-simple proposal,
allowing QDCOUNT to be > 1 but forcing all QNAMEs to be identical, but
I never got time.)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:15:38 +0900 (JST)

> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>

I prefered QDCOUNT>1 idea, but it mixes results of all queries. We
want to know each RCODE and want to separate each answer.

# Or, multiple DNS data in one UDP packet is possible.

# DNSSEC may soluve the multiple RCODE problem.

draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions keeps each RCODE information in
EDNS0 data.

draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes does not have the problem because the
qname is only one.

draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses does not have the problem
because the main query is one.

We would like to compare all idea before proceeding.

--
Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <[email-masked]>

---

From: Ray Bellis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:17:26 +0100

> Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)

I heard that someone implemented this during the Hackathon at the weekend.

Does anyone know who that was?

thanks,

Ray