[DNSOP] draft-fujiwara-dnsop-additional-answers-00.txt
fujiwara@jprs.co.jp Mon, 30 October 2017 10:22 UTC
Return-Path: <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 172E313F96D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 03:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dtsW1ddRaj_J for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 03:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from off-send01.osa.jprs.co.jp (off-send01.osa.jprs.co.jp [IPv6:2001:218:3001:17::10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEA8D13F97C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 03:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp (off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp [172.23.8.61]) by off-send01.osa.jprs.co.jp (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v9UAMG7F023205 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 19:22:16 +0900
Received: from off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss71 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66676180064 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 19:22:15 +0900 (JST)
Received: from localhost (off-cpu05.osa.jprs.co.jp [172.23.4.15]) by off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AC5E180062 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 19:22:15 +0900 (JST)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 19:22:15 +0900
Message-Id: <20171030.192215.1452725349912506052.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: fujiwara@jprs.co.jp
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 24.4 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1690-8.1.0.1062-23426.005
X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.328-5.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--5.328-5.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: pLrzZ2yoINVCXIGdsOwlUh5+URxv1WlBQa2sDHLkQ06FbkyVO0E5BzpI hhonTuyPBQSwRMHLbTsDBRGvSvWBgQsTH6q5zeP3kcT+m3MjC/HwZGE/+dMc1lwpnAAvAwaz5vG 1tXHHDX9M7wVZoURWlPx15EY4PiFAHodpx3o6GrvPhdXKEUVkcrj0igGiOeKhFTIyfyTa0AyXqr F0nhL4j3Uv5fXxlzM9H817pl0C9wwfbciQjfRltc5Scd0yVs+bbv16+gil4jfRyxuwHbF4CWd8N Qw82eCfmE6lS+nZSUKTeL8rrhZPBOjlyyR22XVACWiOS0BVokjAQzqh8D4IY2jliw+xvItdWXOj 3NIpqIqynUhD2tnSErBkcxB01tpxTX7PJ/OU3vL+xOhjarOnHiBQn3S4zK7meeFAQHoVNZJvFzy vAB/ijt0H8LFZNFG7bkV4e2xSge41Qrf+CFEEUBwmi/SDNFiek+mnD8kVkT37qdwq43zqclgpWC bva+Mm
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-C44oXQpy4YCbUF9FzXpzqcYH8s>
Subject: [DNSOP] draft-fujiwara-dnsop-additional-answers-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:22:20 -0000
Hello, I submitted another multiple response proposal. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-additional-answers-00 It is similar to draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses, however, it proposes authoritative DNS server software developers choose additional resource records. # Many implementations (For example, BIND 9 and NSD) add MX mail # exchange A/AAAA or SRV Target A/AAAA in MX or SRV responses. And the draft proposes to append NSEC/NSEC3 RR if additional RR type does not exist. Validating resolvers can generate NODATA response by RFC 8198. It also contains comparison of multiple responses proposals in Appendix. Please read and comment it. Regards, -- Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> Subject: I-D Action: draft-fujiwara-dnsop-additional-answers-00.txt From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 09:57:24 -0700 Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i-d-announce/XqW3OeFv6rczw7inZrIdwe9VY8U> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Returning additional answers in DNS responses Author : Kazunori Fujiwara Filename : draft-fujiwara-dnsop-additional-answers-00.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2017-10-28 Abstract: This document proposes to document the ability to provide multiple answers in single DNS response. For example, authoritative servers may add a NSEC resource record or A/AAAA resource records of the query name. This is especially useful as, in many cases, the entity making the request has no a priori knowledge of what other questions it will need to ask. It is already possible (an authoritative server MAY already sends what it wants in the additional section). This document does not propose any protocol changes, just explanations of an already acceptable practice. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-additional-answers/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-additional-answers-00 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-additional-answers-00 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/