Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-04.txt

Richard Gibson <> Tue, 19 September 2017 02:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C436F12895E for <>; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ng3H1wkQEw7u for <>; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::247]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5620812426E for <>; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k101so4906041iod.1 for <>; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=XdDlqSzP+mhVreazXW/7rjHcZP35SuvgYuZRAtVLEQs=; b=Nzx4MNm3T2PtWFTi2Zf4LdGPaVhIEKFqDHGq6jmcUdlkcwuZwX6ilVqBbaXuGv/T4f Xi9k1zBBoBXwBn4MqOXxdCW3WanylPkgJIvOsN2LDkjL8LUEtHeXr2sO820bXF0ACxjz INYrdBw+xoH1VjjQAxOAyTiP98oZM3DOjjl8E=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=XdDlqSzP+mhVreazXW/7rjHcZP35SuvgYuZRAtVLEQs=; b=WRiNIomPiQuMLr8apmBWzQx4/XhpUWoo6DKR7PyWrtAENW+mfRufJTgPiztG3xjeSD YOdHI/VVB6ZPRnSh09LUolSNt32HK6U59CaWXpIuaaZp4L49tS7p0aG5/IgX/zrzZ2LY vwkVmQfh90m6G9fZC36EXEzlQFIXqFE8k2trLTxcft3BUfkFMhtOQjiyQweuHG3GVLfv ir8ubWeGmw+lGXdN7TiAY4eQok0FKn2CK0y9GRkoQo1rihm+D2SpUgY0/n5NNev/4W8G VEpXKImYsEUcDNKIDvwWI5/caQedGP5/c0O5hEDWa/gRt3J4hGo7C2NK6Lszig9W4GoW OHJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUgbAMS+a7aFhkN0soFXtNOQ9EPqyQJNf/2d67qfWpOjQrOtvZBO flmRYGeRiUDFyShkME39bbFQEezNtMJln6bBoI1aTyloZzM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QB7aMUAQcLLadMRWE02lxvZD4WO603K1dEcrt6AFHIy/znUVSQ0/u00tLlU/J0NYDDRKdyR9wjhPEJf8t/IHBQ=
X-Received: by with SMTP id 14mr21671686iou.69.1505789302849; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Richard Gibson <>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 22:48:02 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: dnsop <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114fcaa080dcaf055981e431"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 02:48:33 -0000

I have some questions about this draft.

How should responders populate the COUNT fields when one record answers
multiple accompanying questions? For example, assume has an MX
record but no A or AAAA (the latter two thus being covered by an authority
section SOA):




ANSWER 3600 IN MX 10



In a more general sense, how are responders to generate—and how are
initiators to interpret—responses in which it is not clear which question
any given response record corresponds to?

Section 3 defines the prefix field of an accompanying question as "a domain
name with the form of a dot or a sequence of labels ending with a
pointer"... could you clarify that "the form of a dot" refers to the root
domain name (i.e., a single null label with wire format 0x00)?

In section 4, what is meant by "the responder assembles the prefix with the
main domain name"? Wire-format domain names are necessarily
fully-qualified, whether or not they end with compression pointers. Is the
operation to be interpreted as something like "if the prefix is the DNS
root domain, treat it as the QNAME"? If so, I think such special processing
is unnecessary, because it's already possible to reference the QNAME
directly with a compression pointer.

Why require accompanying question names to match or be subdomains of the
QNAME? It precludes potentially useful queries like
accompanied by, and prohibiting them doesn't
prevent out-of-bailiwick queries anyway.

Section 5 references a "not been implemented, too many
accompanying-questions." response... what would that response look like?

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 11:19 PM, <> wrote:

> 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 WG of the
>         Title           : A DNS Query including A Main Question with
> Accompanying Questions
>         Authors         : Jiankang Yao
>                           Paul Vixie
>                           Ning Kong
>                           Xiaodong Li
>         Filename        : draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-04.txt
>         Pages           : 11
>         Date            : 2017-09-17
> Abstract:
>    This document enables DNS initiators to send a main question
>    accompanying with several related questions in a single DNS query,
>    and enables DNS responders to put the answers into a single DNS
>    response.  This extension enables a range of initiators to look up
>    "X, or failing that, Y" in a better way than both current
>    alternatives.  This mechanism can reduce the number of DNS round-
>    trips per application work-unit.
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> accompanying-questions-04
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> accompanying-questions-04
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list