Subject: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 11:16:54 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.

        Title           : Returning extra answers in DNS responses.
        Authors         : Warren Kumari
                          Zhiwei Yan
                          Wes Hardaker
                          David C Lawrence
	Filename        : draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses-05.txt
	Pages           : 9
	Date            : 2017-07-03

Abstract:
   This document (re)introduces the ability to provide multiple answers
   in a DNS response.  This is especially useful as, in many cases, the
   entity making the request has no a prori knowledge of what other
   questions it will need to ask.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses-05
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses-05

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Richard Gibson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 19:59:24 -0400

Comments:
1. There's a "www.exmaple.com" typo in the introduction.
2. It is very limiting for this functionality to rely upon DNSSEC, given
that many practical cases still preclude its use.
3. Why have a composite value for EXTRA instead of just using one EXTRA
record per domain (with a Priority field for proper ordering)?
4. Why limit EXTRA domain names to single labels, instead of allowing
answers for e.g. en.m.example.org from m.example.org queries?
5. The missing signal about records that *could* have been included via TCP
or secured by DNS cookies (the TC bit being too strong) seems to be another
case for a "partial response" EDNS header flag (which I raised for
refuse-any in
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg19322.html ).

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:16 PM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>