Re: [dnsext] duplicate RRs and resulting RRSIG

[Doug Barton <[e-mail]>]

On 01/04/2012 12:55, bert hubert wrote:
>>    putting the RRset in canonical form, it MUST treat this as a protocol
>> >    error.  If the implementation chooses to handle this protocol error
>> >    in the spirit of the robustness principle (being liberal in what it
>> >    accepts), it MUST remove all but one of the duplicate RR(s) for the
>> >    purposes of calculating the canonical form of the RRset.
>
> This is exciting language - you MUST do A, but if you don't THEN you MUST do
> B ;-) We'll go for B.

It's not either/or. You MUST treat this as a protocol error (i.e., you
cannot let the data proceed in its current condition). The option is in
how you HANDLE the protocol error. You can either kick it back to the
user in terms of failing to load the zone, or you can fix it up
internally and proceed.

Personally, I think it's better to kick it back to the user. Otherwise,
how will they learn?


Doug

-- 

	You can observe a lot just by watching.	-- Yogi Berra

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/