Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

On 18 Aug 2016, at 7:19, Matthew Pounsett wrote:

> On 18 August 2016 at 01:33, william manning 
> <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> please help me get over the feeling that this argument is founded on 
>> the
>> same logic as that used by folks who "know" I might want, no NEED 
>> that
>> extra bit of email in my inbox.  As I read it, it sounds like DNS 
>> Server
>> Spam being "PUSHED" to the Resolver who may or may not want the data.
>>
>
> Pure hyperbole.

Disagree: partial hyperbole.

> If a client is given a delegation today, you don't complain because 
> glue is
> supplied.

Agree. But...

> It's necessary for the obvious next step.

There is a difference between "don't complain" and "needed". I would not 
complain about an Additional with AAAA for an A request, or vice versa. 
However, I would complain about "A of our advertising partner because I 
think you are about to render an HTML page".

> We already have
> other records (e.g. SRV) which is many cases have data which are 
> useless
> without a followup query.  In what way is it like spam to supply those 
> data
> with the original query?

If I'm making an SRV query, I know I can ask for ("pull" in Tim's 
wording) additional info.

Are there QTYPEs that, when I ask for them, I won't know that I should 
also ask for the related info?

--Paul Hoffman