Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-hall-qtype-addr-00.txt]

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:51:05 -0500

on 8/13/2002 12:10 PM Paul Vixie wrote:

> your proposal makes the request implicit,

explicit

> and runs afoul of the same "this will still be in use long after the
> v4->v6 transition is over"

This is true if the requesting application continues to *DESIRE* both
RRsets long after the transition is complete. If the requesting
application only wants AAAA, then they can query for AAAA only and get
that RRset alone. Nothing is imposed upon them.

You can't say the same for that the ~"just include A" counter-proposal,
which *is* perpetual and uninvited.

> if we're going to pay in complexity for something like ADDR,
> then let's pay the same price but get something way more general.

I agree with this statement in principle. I'll re-read the draft and
comment on it separately.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:38:23 -0500

on 8/13/2002 12:10 PM Paul Vixie wrote:

> if we're going to pay in complexity for something like ADDR, then let's
> pay the same price but get something way more general. below, see EDNS1
> (expired), and note that we could very easily excerpt just the parts
> that deal with multiple questions in a query

> 5 - Multiple Questions for QUERY
>
> 5.1. If QDCOUNT>1, multiple questions are present.  All questions must
> be for the same QNAME and QCLASS; only the QTYPE is allowed to vary.
> It is an error for QDCOUNT>1 and any QTYPE=ANY or QCLASS=ANY.
>
> 5.2. RCODE and AA apply to all RRs in the answer section having the
> QNAME that is shared by all questions in the question section.  AA
> applies to all matching answers, and will not be set unless the exact
> original request was processed by an authoritative server and the
> response forwarded in its entirety.
>
> 5.3. If a multiple question request is processed by an intermediate
> server and the authority server does not support multiple questions,
> the intermediate server must generate an answer iteratively by making
> multiple requests of the authority server.  In this case, AA must never
>  be set in the final answer due to lack of atomicity of the
> contributing authoritative responses.
>
> 5.4. If iteratively processing a multiple question request using an
> authority server which can only process single question requests, if
> any contributing request generates a SERVFAIL response, then the final
> response's RCODE should be SERVFAIL.

This needs a lot more discussion and fleshing out. Are partial answers
acceptable (as with a cache that has temporarily lost external
connectivity)? Is it possible to indicate positive answers, NODATA and
referrals in the same message? How would the "recursion really desired"
flag interact with all of this?

In general, I think it is a good idea, but I'm not completely convinced
that it's possible. It is not nearly as simple as QTYPEADDR, but it
certainly does offer longer term rewards due to its generalized nature, if
it is feasible at all.