qname

And also so you can apply 0x20 bit (x) encoding to the qname for further protection.

Are you saying that I can legitimately read contains:: NameClass -> QName -> Bool two ways?

My ISPs reverse DNS implementation is so bad that qname minimization breaks...

C looks up qname=example.com qtype=MX, R returns the MX record 2.

These things are either non-issues (like QName), things a parser does for you, or optional standards adjacent to XML but not essential to it, e.g.

[0] QName minimization means if if you're asking for foo.bar.baz.example.

Source port randomization, BCP38, and then the 0x20 qname capitalization trick, all turned out to be far more practical mitigations for query-id concerns and others prioritized them.

Like, contains:: (NameClass, QName) -> Bool And contains:: NameClass -> (QName, Bool)?

You also use it for randomising the 16 bit ID in the request packet, and you can use it for randomly capitalizing letters in the qname (0x20 bit encoding).

It's equivalent to either contains:: (NameClass, QName) -> Bool or contains:: NameClass -> (QName -> Bool) In other words, you can treat it as a function taking two arguments, or one function taking one argument and returning another function.

I think 'C++ template programming' might be better also:/ The following syntax in Haskell causes a parse error in my brain: contains:: NameClass -> QName -> Bool I really want it to be contains:: (NameClass, QName) -> Bool Or even just contains:: NameClass, QName -> Bool Is it just my problem to get over or do other people have it, or is there syntactic sugar coming to my rescue?

RR.fromZone(qname + " 30 IN TXT " + verification_code)) The certbot hook looks like this #!/usr/bin/env python3 import...

As a matter of style, Haskellers tend to avoid writing function like this, and prefer to write functions like contains:: NameClass -> (QName -> Bool) which indicates that "contains" is a function that takes a "NameClass" and returns another function.