Re: [DNSOP] draft-jabley-dnsop-ordered-answers

Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu> Fri, 06 November 2015 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <rharolde@umich.edu>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03EFA1B2D3A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:05:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YLTaYSV8cF6D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:05:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x22f.google.com (mail-yk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60C861B2D30 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:05:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ykek133 with SMTP id k133so192575135yke.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Nov 2015 10:05:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umich_edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=e1+eqgFXJ7Z5F6V7F1kfEr3ErWazzT/YZsbzpgvwOgA=; b=a0ZG/Y/4kv8rIbwSIr4ZOIhgXwUdvzCe35X6N6FyIgj+4snDJpYFSUPUvbK3X92eCA FcOGhUzlLDeXApTyaHIVRhR/+tBSddNH+BNZagPVrUJ8DqCkq8Vleg811rzxYvPaxK5R HFErrSdx/bmA23u2DxTEkEsbqdn/dV8IXdfoOW2oeQ+CIu5i0aS3Sf35whDE4NfUQHgT 7rE6MJa0L+uBxY6TWmdaEl+F8joKVKTe+tgXJ7wiEtYC/v3ra6yDb0B8U5mS2xVecYZe o+j79k8nlu4fyZ0nGk4eHeJwHES9xsgoKl1u/zM2jsL1xDo85GsXSkBldn+J2PBOpRR3 NuSw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=e1+eqgFXJ7Z5F6V7F1kfEr3ErWazzT/YZsbzpgvwOgA=; b=e4PaJuLlv/atGl+Z+GpVtGquJjkAIjLzi1AjfWQ1wav575fTZCyOVJYdK8F0Qf9qiU oNjIEY8QbEVFu8S9Z0PCNKC2qks1ilqGBRgSKVIuGjB/MGIEJz9ciyflIolAH3K5Q0e9 tJUx7R6w50rEijW1+x9d8TAWxAFFZRT2ioLj5NE/9enQj9mDn2ocSqJHPEbS8Wsac+ee cidyRN3g/qY62roycgd6nRXIaMoT3gaq0s4RLqAApcfmZ3Le/6/alsoLLO/PFA3hGmkp X/Bd3NCaOjiNFEkOidkL0huDD19MBQqqbz+fhbQOIfXXop/DFbQQAbFapWprN/im1dfw yVWw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnfPXB1JU1hBwbuCPVCSorAVVJeL7k0GThELzM5NMJQh4khz6XTBN9IcP1/zjcZ9ljrUmOT
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.13.230.11 with SMTP id p11mr7040143ywe.213.1446833100330; Fri, 06 Nov 2015 10:05:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.129.43.136 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:05:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3330849.lFpNtEzbQ8@linux-85bq.suse>
References: <1E5B644E-EA0D-4287-8AB5-1907EE06BE1C@hopcount.ca> <563B58FE.50905@bellis.me.uk> <3330849.lFpNtEzbQ8@linux-85bq.suse>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:05:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+nkc8CHPmZe3ev4j+LA_vgVJEgbtyRM+1=K=YM4-KJxYtTjCQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@tisf.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c06bf24fec87a0523e31478
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/41VU97bz0qywvXPJ7DnCFc0bWxk>
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-jabley-dnsop-ordered-answers
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 18:05:03 -0000

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Paul Vixie <vixie@tisf.net> wrote:

> On Thursday, November 05, 2015 10:26:22 PM Ray Bellis wrote:
>
> >
> > IMHO, if a clarification is needed, it's that a client that depends on
> > the order of the RRsets in an answer MUST NOT do so.
>
> there's an installed base consisting of over a billion stubs and a few
> tens of
> millions of recursives who will fail to parse your response if the CNAME
> comes
> after the thing it points to.
>
> generally speaking, that has to be documented, and has first-mover
> advantage.
>
> --
> P. Vixie
>
>
> To keep things working, I agree that that servers MUST order the answers.

I thought of suggesting that "clients SHOULD accept answers in any order".
But on second thought, this increases code complexity, for no real
benefit.  And we will probably see more low-compute-power devices doing
some basic DNS lookups that need to keep code to a minimum.

-- 
Bob Harold