Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes-04.txt

[Dave Lawrence <[e-mail]>]

Ray Bellis writes:
> This is just a "keep alive" so as to keep this draft in consideration as
> one of the multiple solutions in this problem space while DNSOP decides
> whether this is a problem worth solving.
> 
> I still think it's the most elegant of those proposed ;-)

I whole-heartedly agree, as Ray's idea was the basic conclusion I'd
arrived at independently.  I was going to propose something very
similar (with only minor differences in details) until I found out
that I'd somehow overlooked his previous draft.

Note that I'm saying this even though I am also now working with
Warren and Wes on the multiple-response draft, which I suspect is one
of the other proposed solutions that Ray implies above.

I believe that multiple-response and multi-qtypes solve similar but
somewhat different problems.  As Wes observed during a conversation
last week, the former is for when the authoritative server believes it
knows what records you're going to want next (and even then can't
effectively signal the absence of any particular record).  The latter
is driven by the client knowing just types it'll want to know about
for a given qname, and indicates explicitly what the existence of each
is.

Multi-qtypes is also far easier to implement and will be much more
useful much more quickly.  It can roll out in resolvers and
authorities incrementally without depending on DNSSEC and with far
fewer security concerns.  At a recent industry meeting I announcement
my intention to ask Ray to revive it and was met with fairly
widespread support from both authoritative and recursive operators.

I'm strongly behind multi-qtypes and will be proselytizing for it as
well as contributing text.