[dnsext] rfc4035 & 5155 : order of RR's ?

"Marc Lampo" <marc.lampo@eurid.eu> Wed, 30 May 2012 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <marc.lampo@eurid.eu>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E80621F8687 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 May 2012 04:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.45
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IGZVS12-sUIX for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 May 2012 04:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from barra.eurid.eu (barra.eurid.eu [78.41.71.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B4A21F8659 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 May 2012 04:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1338377464-0369496fa65d500001-uIE7UK
Received: from zimbra.eurid.eu (zcs-master.vt.eurid.eu [10.19.100.121]) by barra.eurid.eu with ESMTP id C7gYbhJCSUBdctUj for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:31:04 +0200 (CEST)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: marc.lampo@eurid.eu
X-ASG-Whitelist: Client
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.eurid.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C171E408B for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:31:04 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at techmail.eurid.eu
Received: from zimbra.eurid.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.eurid.eu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dahbaG3SKFQW for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:31:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from zimbra.eurid.eu (zimbra.eurid.eu [10.19.100.120]) by zimbra.eurid.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF658E4050 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:31:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Lampo <marc.lampo@eurid.eu>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 13:31:03 +0200
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: rfc4035 & 5155 : order of RR's ?
Message-ID: <004d01cd3e57$b230ec80$1692c580$@lampo>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.14_GA_2928 (ZimbraConnectorForOutlook/5.0.3064.18)
Thread-Index: Ac0+V7HIfS/+l479Tg+CrtMiiebs7Q==
Content-Language: en-za
x-antivirus-status: Clean
x-antivirus: avast!
X-Originating-IP: [172.20.1.121]
X-Barracuda-Connect: zcs-master.vt.eurid.eu[10.19.100.121]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1338377464
X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.19.10.12:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at eurid.eu
Subject: [dnsext] rfc4035 & 5155 : order of RR's ?
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 11:31:13 -0000

Hello,

A stupid question, perhaps, but ...

Both RFC4035 and RFC5155 talk in more or less global terms
on adding DNSSEC RR's to the reply (answer/authority/addition sections).

As an example of "global" term, a quote from RFC5155, section 7.2.3 :
"The server MUST include the NSEC3 RR that matches QNAME."

In RFC4035, section 3.1, the text states :
"... must include additional RRSIG, NSEC, ... RRs, ..."
(this is a paragraph of serving a DNSSEC'd zone,
 so I interpret "must include" as : must add them to the response)

Seems to me neither RFC states anything about "order" :
like first the RRset, followed by the RRSIG(s) over that RRset.
Or does it ?

Yet, in both RFC's the examples maintain that logical order.


I now stumble over an authoritative NS that does not implement
the order - but that does returns the correct type and number
of RRs in its answer -
and Bind (9.7) seems to have a problem with it.

Hence my question :
Are the RFC's somehow prescribing some "order" in RRset's and
the accompanying DNSSEC RRs ?

Thanks,


Marc Lampo
Security Officer
 
    EURid