IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

fujiwara@jprs.co.jp Thu, 07 July 2016 11:05 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 5D43712D754 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 04:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.327
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-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 TMSqjYCfVJ3B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 04:05:16 -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 9FA2812D74A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 04:05:15 -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 u67B5BtL002670; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:05:11 +0900
Received: from off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss71 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4780F18008A; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:05:10 +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 323D6180062; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:05:10 +0900 (JST)
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 20:05:10 +0900
Message-Id: <20160707.200510.1773210699265192931.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
To: yaojk@cnnic.cn
From: fujiwara@jprs.co.jp
In-Reply-To: <2016070709330697556153@cnnic.cn>
References: <20160701075116.24678.59997.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20160706.180940.1170484542745240536.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> <2016070709330697556153@cnnic.cn>
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-7.1.0.1690-8.0.0.1202-22436.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.868-5.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--6.868-5.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: TxWMfh/XGrFCXIGdsOwlUu5i6weAmSDKYawhvkuLgj7Sgap63qByob0C qrKlO5xK+n4exm8tpYbCnq6tPJUDujoOKuJSTzbfHG+0pEkanSQj1/mVULk89AWoUe90pumNgK6 qCGa1Z9d2nfR+wuO2Vwl8rZUeg2ihXSJ4c3nT+QdCvapcIkxJXxLXa2P1m93zh/BqejSDeoKg0h WzUrznJ60FMo+LMtv3rnWOP31nNp05YQODEdL0ybmR+C0l9vjVQa2sDHLkQ04qVURv+QkF3KPFj JEFr+olfeZdJ1Xsorg/58/vGrloc7L1D3ZkqVjaoPPe4M9v8m5QSFbL1bvQAXnN0DN7HnFm4fej Ncz1GWxzHlYgFh5CNnc6ppamIy9hUO/QJfDQVVaDv+6mEtii6pRMZUCEHkRt
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/KNgFASX1og52K7kYpNTlISC0mo0>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:05:18 -0000

> From: "Jiankang Yao" <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
>>* My idea
> 
>>  I prefer multiple query sections (with some restrictions)
>>  and merged answers.
> 
>>  multiple query examples may be
>>    NAME A + NAME AAAA + MX
>>    NAME A + NAME AAAA + _443._tcp.NAME TLSA
>>    NAME A + NAME AAAA + _sip._udp.NAME SRV + _sips._tcp.NAME SRV + ...
>>
> 
> Dear Fujiwara-san,
> 
> Your points/scenarios  fall in the Draft
>  https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-00.txt

Thanks.

I read the draft. It has similar point and different point.

I cannot understand the UAQ bit necessity.
When a client sends a query with AQ EDNS0 option,
if the server knows the AQ EDNS0 option, the server can answer AQ response
because the client knows the AQ extension.
If the server does not know the AQ EDNS0 option, the server drops the unknown option.

Another comment: the response format is very complicated.

--
Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email