Re: [DNSOP] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-00.txt

[Bob Harold <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Ray Bellis <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On 29/04/2016 02:01, Jiankang Yao wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> >       We submit a draft about "A DNS Query including A Main Question
> > with Accompanying Questions".
> >
> >        Any comments are welcome.
>
> I am unconvinced that the ability to specify multiple QNAMEs offers any
> benefits and can't think of any good use cases where the client knows a
> priori what the other QNAMEs might be.   [ I don't consider looking up
> example.com and www.example.com at the same time to be 'good' ].
>
> The examples given all appear to show a recursor -> authority query, but
> I see no hint in the draft about whether it's only for that path or also
> for stub -> recursor.
>
> My own draft in this area (draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes) where only
> a single QNAME is supported and a single RCODE is returned has IMHO far
> clearer semantics.  It's also appropriate both for stub -> recursor and
> for recursor -> authority.
>
> Ray
>

I am assuming that the benefits here are:
- reduced number of packets
- reduced total bytes
- possibly reduced round trips

Would it be possible to get most of these benefits with a combination of:
- tcp + pipeline - pipeline multiple queries with less packets
- tcp-fast-open - avoid extra round trip

If cookies are longer-lived than tcp sessions, could we use tcp-fast-open
with cookies to avoid spoofed source addresses?

If all of that would work together, it would be more flexible than either
of the above drafts.  But I am probably missing something.

-- 
Bob Harold