Re: [dnssd] Call for adoption of draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes into DNSSD

[Chris Box <[e-mail]>]

Hi DNSSD,

The adoption call for draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes-08
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes-08.html>
ended
on Friday. The chairs noted four positive responses and none against. It
was also copied to DNSOP, where there was discussion of the protocol design
but no objections to the idea of it being adopted by DNSSD.

The four positive responses covered three affiliations, and included offers
of review, editing and implementation.

We conclude there is rough consensus, and the document is now adopted into
the working group.

Ray, please issue an updated I-D with a name reflecting this status.

Thanks everyone

Chris (for the chairs)


On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 18:07, Chris Box <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear DNSSD folks,
>
> This message starts a two-week adoption call for
> draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes-08
> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes-08.html>,
> ending at 23:59 on 30th November in any timezone. As discussed in the
> Prague meeting (slides-118-dnssd-multiple-dns-questions
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/materials/slides-118-dnssd-multiple-dns-questions-00>)
> this is proposed as a way to permit asking for multiple query types in a
> single DNS query message. This would save capacity on Thread networks,
> where it is common to need to ask for both SRV and TXT.
>
> An alternative existing design is to achieve this with QDCOUNT=2, but such
> a design conflicts with draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-01>.
> That DNSOP draft describes the problems encountered when QDCOUNT>1 and
> proposes to require that QDCOUNT<=1.
>
> The chairs consider that draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes-08 is consistent
> with point 2 of the DNSSD charter. Please review the draft and consider
> whether you support its adoption by DNSSD. Please share any thoughts with
> the list to indicate support or opposition. Note that this is not a vote.
>
> If you are willing to provide a more in-depth review, or are willing to
> consider implementing it, please state it explicitly to give the chairs an
> indication of the energy level in the working group willing to work on the
> document.
>
> WG adoption is the start of the process. The fundamental question is
> whether you agree the proposal is worth the WG's time to work on and
> whether this draft represents a good starting point.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris (for the chairs)
>
>