RFC 9619: In the DNS, QDCOUNT Is (Usually) One
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document updates RFC 1035 by constraining the allowed value of the QDCOUNT parameter in DNS messages with OPCODE = 0 (QUERY) to a maximum of one, and it specifies the required behavior when values that are not allowed are encountered.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC9619
- Published
- July 2024
- Authors
- R. Bellis; J. Abley
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- ops
- Pages
- 7
- Also known as
- —
- Updates:
- RFC 1035
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 9617A YANG Data Model for In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM)Current
August 2024
- RFC 9615Automatic DNSSEC Bootstrapping Using Authenticated Signals from the Zone's OperatorCurrent
July 2024
- RFC 9609Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming QueriesCurrent
February 2025
- RFC 9630Multicast On-Path Telemetry Using In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM)Current
August 2024
- RFC 9632Finding and Using Geofeed DataCurrent
August 2024
- RFC 9637Expanding the IPv6 Documentation SpaceCurrent
August 2024
- RFC 9640YANG Data Types and Groupings for CryptographyCurrent
October 2024
- RFC 9641A YANG Data Model for a TruststoreCurrent
October 2024
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?