Skip to main content

DNS Multiple QTYPEs
draft-ietf-dnssd-multi-qtypes-11

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (dnssd WG)
Author Ray Bellis
Last updated 2026-01-04 (Latest revision 2025-12-10)
Replaces draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats
Reviews
Additional resources GitHub Repository
Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Tim Wicinski
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2025-11-29
IESG IESG state Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed
Action Holder
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Éric Vyncke
Send notices to tjw.ietf@gmail.com
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
draft-ietf-dnssd-multi-qtypes-11
DNSSD                                                          R. Bellis
Internet-Draft                                                       ISC
Intended status: Standards Track                        10 December 2025
Expires: 13 June 2026

                          DNS Multiple QTYPEs
                    draft-ietf-dnssd-multi-qtypes-11

Abstract

   This document specifies a method for a DNS client to request
   additional DNS record types to be delivered alongside the primary
   record type specified in the question section of a DNS QUERY
   (OpCode=0).

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://dnssd-
   wg.github.io/draft-ietf-dnssd-multi-qtypes/draft-ietf-dnssd-multi-
   qtypes.html.  Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnssd-multi-qtypes/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the DNSSD Working Group
   mailing list (mailto:dnssd@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnssd/.  Subscribe at
   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/dnssd-wg/draft-ietf-dnssd-multi-qtypes.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

Bellis                    Expires 13 June 2026                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             DNS Multiple QTYPEs             December 2025

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 June 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Multiple QTYPE EDNS Options Format  . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Client Request Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Server Request Parsing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.4.  Server Response Generation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.5.  Client Response Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Appendix A.   Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     A.1.  Stub query for A with MQType-Query for AAAA + HTTPS . . .   9
     A.2.  Stub query for DS with MQType-Query for DNSKEY  . . . . .  10
     A.3.  Recursive query for DS with MQType-Query for NS . . . . .  11
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   A commonly requested DNS [STD13] feature is the ability to receive
   multiple related resource records (RRs) in a single DNS response.

   For example, it may be desirable to receive the A, AAAA and HTTPS
   records for a domain name together, rather than having to issue
   multiple queries.

Bellis                    Expires 13 June 2026                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft             DNS Multiple QTYPEs             December 2025

   The DNS wire protocol in theory supported having multiple questions
   in a single packet, but in practice this does not work.  In
   [RFC9619], RFC1035 is updated to only permit a single question in a
   QUERY (OpCode=0) request.

   Sending QTYPE=ANY does not guarantee that all RRsets will be
   returned.  [RFC8482] specifies that responders may return a single
   RRset of their choosing.

   This document provides a solution for those cases where only the
   QTYPE varies by specifying a new option for the Extension Mechanisms
   for DNS (EDNS [RFC6891]) that contains an additional list of QTYPE
   values that the client wishes to receive in addition to the single
   QTYPE appearing in the question section.  A different EDNS option is
   used in response packets as protection against DNS middleboxes that
   echo EDNS options verbatim.

   The specification described herein is applicable both for queries
   from a stub resolver to recursive servers, and from recursive
   resolvers to authoritative servers.  It does not apply to Multicast
   DNS queries [RFC6762], which are already designed to allow requesting
   multiple records in a single query.

2.  Terminology used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Specification

3.1.  Multiple QTYPE EDNS Options Format

   The overall format of an EDNS option is shown for reference below,
   per [RFC6891], followed by the option specific data:

       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    0: |                          OPTION-CODE                          |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    2: |                         OPTION-LENGTH                         |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    4: |                                                               |
       :                          OPTION-DATA                          :
       |                                                               |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

Bellis                    Expires 13 June 2026                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft             DNS Multiple QTYPEs             December 2025

   OPTION-CODE: MQTYPE-Query (20) in queries and MQTYPE-Response (21) in
   responses.

   OPTION-LENGTH: Size (in octets) of OPTION-DATA.

   OPTION-DATA: Option specific, as below:

       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    0: |                              QT1                              |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    2: |                                                               |
       :                              ...                              :
       |                                                               |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       |                              QTn                              |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

   A list of 2-octet fields in network order (MSB first) each specifying
   a DNS RRTYPE that must be for a data RRTYPE as described in
   Section 3.1 of [RFC6895].

3.2.  Client Request Processing

   DNS clients implementing this specification MUST generate packets
   that conform to the server request parsing rules described
   immediately below.

   The choice of when a client implementation should attempt to coalesce
   queries for multiple QTYPEs using this method is implementation
   specific and not discussed further herein.

3.3.  Server Request Parsing

   If an MQTYPE-Query option is received in any inbound DNS message with
   an OpCode other than QUERY (0) the server MUST return a FORMERR
   response.

   A server that receives an MQTYPE-Response option in any inbound DNS
   message MUST return a FORMERR response.

   A server that receives more than one MQTYPE-Query option in a query
   MUST return a FORMERR response.

   If an MQTYPE-Query option is received in a query that contains no
   primary question (i.e. QDCOUNT=0) the server MUST return a FORMERR
   response.

Bellis                    Expires 13 June 2026                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft             DNS Multiple QTYPEs             December 2025

   If an MQTYPE-Query option is received in a query where the primary
   question is a non-data RRTYPE (e.g. ANY, AXFR, etc.) the server MUST
   return a FORMERR response.

   If the QT list in an MQTYPE-Query option is empty the server MUST
   return a FORMERR response.

   If any invalid QTx is received in the query (e.g. one corresponding
   to a Meta RRTYPE) the server MUST return a FORMERR response.

   If any duplicate QTx (or one duplicating the primary QTYPE field) is
   contained in a query the server MUST return a FORMERR response.

3.4.  Server Response Generation

   A conforming server that receives an MQTYPE-Query option in a query
   MUST return an MQTYPE-Response option in its response, even if that
   response is truncated (TC=1).  This is necessary to indicate that the
   server does support this extension.

   The server MUST first start constructing a response for the primary
   (QNAME, QCLASS, QTYPE) tuple specified in the Question section per
   the existing DNS sections.  The RCODE and all other flags (e.g. AA,
   AD, etc) MUST be determined at this time.

   If this initial response results in truncation (TC=1) then the
   additional queries specified in the MQTYPE-Query option MUST NOT be
   processed.

   After the initial response is prepared, the server MUST attempt to
   combine the responses for individual (QNAME, QCLASS, QTx)
   combinations into the response for the first query.  If a recursive
   server does not yet have those responses available it MUST first make
   appropriate outbound queries to populate its caches.

   For each individual combination the server MUST evaluate the
   resulting RCODE and other flags and check that they all match the
   values generated from the primary query.

   If any mismatch is detected the mismatching additional response MUST
   NOT be included in the final combined response and its QTx value MUST
   NOT be included in the MQTYPE-Response option's list.  This might
   happen, for example, if the primary query resulted in a NOERROR
   response but a QTx query resulted in a SERVFAIL, or if the primary
   response has AA=0 but a QTx response has AA=1, such as might happen
   if the NS and DS records were both requested at the parent side of a
   zone cut.

Bellis                    Expires 13 June 2026                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft             DNS Multiple QTYPEs             December 2025

   The server MUST attempt to combine the remaining individual RRs into
   the same sections in which they would have appeared in a standalone
   query, i.e.  as if each combination had been "the question" per
   section 4.1 of RFC1035.

   The server MUST detect duplicate RRs and keep only a single copy of
   each RR in its respective section.  Duplicates can occur e.g. in the
   Answer section if a CNAME chain is involved, or in the Authority
   section if multiple QTYPEs don't exist, etc.  Note that RRs can be
   legitimately duplicated in different sections, e.g. for the (SOA,
   TYPE12345) combination on apex where TYPE12345 is not present.

   Handling of an MQTYPE-Query option MUST NOT itself trigger a
   truncated response.  If message size (or other) limits do not allow
   all of the data obtained by querying for an additional QTx to be
   included in the final response in their entirety (i.e. as complete
   RRsets) then the server MUST NOT include the respective QTx in the
   MQTYPE-Response option's list and MAY stop processing further QTx
   combinations.

   If all RRs for a single QTx combination fit into the message then the
   server MUST then include the respective QTx in the MQTYPE-Response
   option's list to indicate that the given query type was completely
   processed.

   Note that it is possible for the resulting MQTYPE-Response option to
   contain an empty list, but as described above the option MUST still
   be returned.

3.5.  Client Response Processing

   If the response to a query containing an MQTYPE-Query option does not
   contain an MQTYPE-Response option, or if it erroneously contains an
   MQTYPE-Query option, the client MUST treat the response as if this
   option is unsupported by the server and MUST process the primary
   response as if the MQTYPE-Query option had not been used.

   In the above case, or if the server generates a FORMERR response, the
   client MUST issue additional standalone queries (e.g. without using
   the MQTYPE-Query option) for all QTYPEs for which an answer is still
   required.

   If the MQTYPE-Response option is present more than once or if a QTx
   value is duplicated (or duplicates the primary QTYPE field) the
   client MUST treat the answer as invalid (equivalent to FORMERR).

Bellis                    Expires 13 June 2026                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft             DNS Multiple QTYPEs             December 2025

   The Question section and the list of types present in the MQTYPE-
   Response option indicates the list of (QNAME, QCLASS, qtypes)
   combinations which are completely contained within the received
   response.  The answers to all query combinations share the same RCODE
   and all other flags.

   All RRs required by existing DNS specifications are expected to be
   present in the respective sections of the DNS message, including
   proofs of nonexistence where required.  The client MUST NOT rely on
   any particular order of RRs in the message sections.

   For the purposes of Section 5.4.1 of [RFC2181] any authoritative
   answers received MUST be ranked the same as the answer for the
   primary question.

   Clients MUST take into account that individual RRs might originate
   from different DNS zones and that proofs of non-existence might have
   been produced by different signers.

   Absence of QTx values which were requested by client but are not
   present in the MQTYPE-Response option indicates that:

   *  the server was unwilling to process the request (e.g. because a
      limit was exceeded), and/or

   *  the individual responses could not be combined into one message
      because of RCODE or other flag mismatches, and/or

   *  the message size limit would be exceeded

   The client MUST subsequently initiate separate standalone queries for
   all QTx values for which an answer is still required.

4.  Security Considerations

   The method documented here does not change any of the security
   properties of the DNS protocol itself.

   It should however be noted that this method does increase the
   potential amplification factor when the DNS protocol is used as a
   vector for a denial of service attack.

   Implementors SHOULD allow operators to configure limits on the number
   of QTx values specified and/or the resulting response size.

Bellis                    Expires 13 June 2026                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft             DNS Multiple QTYPEs             December 2025

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has assigned the following in the "DNS EDNS0 Option Codes (OPT)"
   registry:

            +=======+=================+==========+===========+
            | Value | Name            | Status   | Reference |
            +=======+=================+==========+===========+
            | 20    | MQTYPE-Query    | Optional | RFC TBD   |
            +-------+-----------------+----------+-----------+
            | 21    | MQTYPE-Response | Optional | RFC TBD   |
            +-------+-----------------+----------+-----------+

                       Table 1: EDNS Option Numbers

Acknowledgements

   The author wishes to thank the following for their feedback and
   reviews during the initial development of this document: Michael
   Graff, Olafur Gudmundsson, Matthijs Mekking, and Paul Vixie.

   In addition the author wishes to thank the following for subsequent
   review during discussion in the DNSSD Working Group: Chris Box,
   Stuart Cheshire, Esko Dijk, Ted Lemon, David Schinazi and Petr
   Spacek.

References

Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2181]  Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
              Specification", RFC 2181, DOI 10.17487/RFC2181, July 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2181>.

   [RFC6891]  Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
              for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6891>.

   [RFC6895]  Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
              Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 6895, DOI 10.17487/RFC6895,
              April 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6895>.

Bellis                    Expires 13 June 2026                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft             DNS Multiple QTYPEs             December 2025

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [RFC9619]  Bellis, R. and J. Abley, "In the DNS, QDCOUNT Is (Usually)
              One", RFC 9619, DOI 10.17487/RFC9619, July 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9619>.

   [STD13]    Internet Standard 13,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std13>.
              At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following:

              Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.

              Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

Informative References

   [RFC6762]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6762>.

   [RFC8482]  Abley, J., Gudmundsson, O., Majkowski, M., and E. Hunt,
              "Providing Minimal-Sized Responses to DNS Queries That
              Have QTYPE=ANY", RFC 8482, DOI 10.17487/RFC8482, January
              2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8482>.

Appendix A.   Examples

   The examples below are shown as might be reported by the ISC Dig
   utility.  For the purposes of brevity irrelevant content is omitted.

A.1.  Stub query for A with MQType-Query for AAAA + HTTPS

   In this example a stub resolver has requested the A record for
   www.example.com, along with an MQTYPE-Query option requesting AAAA
   and HTTPS records.  The stub resolver has also set the DO bit,
   indicating DNSSEC support.

Bellis                    Expires 13 June 2026                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft             DNS Multiple QTYPEs             December 2025

   The presence of the HTTPS QTYPE in the MQTYPE-Response option of the
   response coupled with its absence from the answer section indicates
   that the recursive server currently holds no data for this QTYPE.
   The corresponding type fields in the NSEC3 record further provide a
   cryptographic proof of non-existence for the HTTPS QTYPE and the SOA
   record also indicates a "negative answer".

   ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 11111
   ;; flags: qr rd ra ad
   ;; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 1

   ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
   ; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 1232
   ; MQTYPE-Response: AAAA HTTPS

   ;; QUESTION SECTION:
   ;www.example.com.         IN  A

   ;; ANSWER SECTION:
   www.example.com.    2849  IN  A       192.0.2.1
   www.example.com.    2849  IN  RRSIG   A [...]
   www.example.com.    3552  IN  AAAA    3fff::1234
   www.example.com.    3552  IN  RRSIG   AAAA [...]

   ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
   example.com.        2830  IN  SOA     ns.example.com. [...]
   example.com.        2830  IN  RRSIG   SOA 13 2 [...]
   [...].example.com.  2830  IN  NSEC3   [...] A TXT AAAA RRSIG
   [...].example.com.  2830  IN  RRSIG   NSEC3 [...]

                         Figure 1: A + AAAA + HTTPS

A.2.  Stub query for DS with MQType-Query for DNSKEY

   In this similar example, the primary QTYPE is for DS and the MQTYPE-
   Query field only contains DNSKEY.

   Both the DS and DNSKEY records are returned, along with their
   corresponding RRSIG records.

Bellis                    Expires 13 June 2026                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft             DNS Multiple QTYPEs             December 2025

   ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 33333
   ;; flags: qr rd ra ad
   ;; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 5, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

   ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
   ; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 1232
   ; MQTYPE-Response: DNSKEY

   ;; QUESTION SECTION:
   ;example.com.                 IN      DS

   ;; ANSWER SECTION:
   example.com.        625   IN  DNSKEY  256 3 13 [...]
   example.com.        625   IN  DNSKEY  257 3 13 [...]
   example.com.        625   IN  RRSIG   DNSKEY [...] example.com. [...]
   example.com.      86185   IN  DS      370 13 2 [...]
   example.com.      86185   IN  RRSIG   DS [...] com. [...]

                         Figure 2: Stub DS + DNSKEY

A.3.  Recursive query for DS with MQType-Query for NS

   In this instance, a recursive resolver is sending a DS record query
   to the parent zone's authoritative server and simultaneously
   requesting the NS records for the zone.

   Since the DS record response is marked as authoritative (AA = 1) but
   the NS record data on the parent side of a zone cut is not
   authoritative (AA = 0) the server is unable to merge the responses,
   and the NS QTYPE is omitted from the MQTYPE-Response field.

   ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 33333
   ;; flags: qr aa
   ;; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 5, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

   ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
   ; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 1232
   ; MQTYPE-Response: [empty]

   ;; QUESTION SECTION:
   ;example.com.             IN  DS

   ;; ANSWER SECTION:
   example.com.      86185   IN  DS      370 13 2 [...]
   example.com.      86185   IN  RRSIG   DS [...] com. [...]

                        Figure 3: Recursive DS + NS

Bellis                    Expires 13 June 2026                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft             DNS Multiple QTYPEs             December 2025

Author's Address

   Ray Bellis
   Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
   PO Box 360
   Newmarket,  NH 03857
   United States of America
   Phone: +1 650 423 1300
   Email: ray@isc.org

Bellis                    Expires 13 June 2026                 [Page 12]