Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

fujiwara@jprs.co.jp Thu, 20 July 2017 08:15 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 ED4CA129AA0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 01:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 gQQRgwETm-Ib for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 01:15:44 -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 E7F26131483 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 01:15:40 -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 v6K8FddU011460; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:15:39 +0900
Received: from off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss71 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E882180064; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:15:38 +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 69B50180062; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:15:38 +0900 (JST)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:15:38 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20170720.171538.154265534035010446.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
To: bortzmeyer@nic.fr
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
From: fujiwara@jprs.co.jp
In-Reply-To: <20170720075646.GB970@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <149916854131.16079.9203202983727964007.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170720075646.GB970@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
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-7.1.0.1690-8.1.0.1062-23206.005
X-TM-AS-Result: No--3.340-5.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--3.340-5.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: vMI3egdXDQ1CXIGdsOwlUu5i6weAmSDKYawhvkuLgj6qvcIF1TcLYIAH BPmVHmpk2LitwsYAPc90Uwa6HM4n4P7tJ8S0pvwQZEi29PZzfK2hi9MC6OBOwuKv1l14gOR8zUV ZW0U/R7YyXmUu+NKW667fwSl3mRn+kuWIhM1lxJR2CNuIzaHi4TVPM/rRSR0dh8BhJvgqWBkNgl Bs2cTdnfVv3bMep8IukZOl7WKIImq0P2qkGU0Xys/8zK5WVP8LS0iSG6xyIZc+WVT1m0MMz1gXe pbcl7r7XtxqtgHfHdtHA7qb/QiH4wvvLr1z5psGgG7+Gl8X5Apg6SgcwqmguWz7Oj/VrWqVuZsg 2f88JrTgv+C6bBj4rcJgxsyaDMdiUARAPI1OA8tkfd/zPGWwsvvpR1kNBhYY7Y82MSiAt9ngc4b Wh8i7un7cGd19dSFd
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/kDHJpLwKTctk6-rukrD74jrNKHg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"
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: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:15:46 -0000

> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
>> The DNSOP WG has placed draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes in state
>> Candidate for WG Adoption
> 
> Did anyone was brave enough to make a detailed comparison between this
> draft and other proposals like draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions?
> 
> (I was thinking myself of writing a draft on a ultra-simple proposal,
> allowing QDCOUNT to be > 1 but forcing all QNAMEs to be identical, but
> I never got time.)

I prefered QDCOUNT>1 idea, but it mixes results of all queries. We
want to know each RCODE and want to separate each answer.

# Or, multiple DNS data in one UDP packet is possible.

# DNSSEC may soluve the multiple RCODE problem.

draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions keeps each RCODE information in
EDNS0 data.

draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes does not have the problem because the
qname is only one.

draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses does not have the problem
because the main query is one.

We would like to compare all idea before proceeding.

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