Re: Issue: Add a new QTYPE

[Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>]

> ... IMO this raises the unreliability of the QTYPE to a whole new
> level, and I think it's why QTYPE=* has been abandoned for the most
> part (e.g. by sendmail), even in situations where it could be a useful
> optimization.

sendmail was incorrect in its usage of QTYPE=* and when they "abandoned"
it, it was to fix the bug in their code where they had used it at all.

> > ... it wasn't resource/capacity, but rather complexity, which took
> > this functionality off the table.  see http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/edns1.txt
> > and the working group minutes from DNSIND.
>
> I did dig back through the archives, and saw a message from you
> <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2002/msg01448.html>
> admitting that QTYPE=* wasn't really germane ("it was a debugging wish
> rather than an operational expectation") to the RRD-flag part of the EDNS1
> proposal, and a statement of intention that you were going to remove that
> reference from the draft. There was, however, no subsequent published
> revision of the draft, so the verbiage still remains.

the draft is expired.  the DNSIND working group decided to scrap everything
therein.  my offer to pull out RRD was insufficient; the wg wanted the whole
thing killed.

> As far as I can tell, there has been no attempt to clarify QTYPE=*
> recursivity independently of the EDNS1 proposal.

there is no way to "clarify" QTYPE=* short of a protocol extension.  the
current behaviour is perfectly well understood and there are no incorrect
implementations of it.  there's no document quality issue around QTYPE=*,
and all extant implementations are fully interoperable regarding QTYPE=*.

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