[DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer section of a DNS response
Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-7@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 19 January 2026 14:01 UTC
Return-Path: <pch-b55F8B228@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8F1A9E4D31 for <dnsop@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2026 06:01:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E0SY1-ui3FuF for <dnsop@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2026 06:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [45.83.6.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59037A9E4BDE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2026 06:00:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #158) id m1vhpo4-0000MUC; Mon, 19 Jan 2026 15:00:36 +0100
Message-Id: <m1vhpo4-0000MUC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-7@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b55F8B228@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <m1vho19-0000MiC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <D0B5D7B0-FB24-47A5-A3D6-57FE9708E435@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 20 Jan 2026 00:32:58 +1100 ." <D0B5D7B0-FB24-47A5-A3D6-57FE9708E435@isc.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 15:00:36 +0100
Message-ID-Hash: 2CSLAUT3YEP4XFTQC4T4CEJFRUI75FL2
X-Message-ID-Hash: 2CSLAUT3YEP4XFTQC4T4CEJFRUI75FL2
X-MailFrom: pch-b55F8B228@u-1.phicoh.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer section of a DNS response
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Bwq-1Cpp3ABkikT6za7Is8IKX0o>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>
> There is no requirement > to validate every RRset in a response. There can be lots of cruft > in there that isnt validated. Requiring everything to be validated > is a recipe to DoS a validator. Validators validate the parts of > the responses that are necessary to verify the answer to the question > and discard the rest. > > You seem to be under the impression that validators pass answers > through. They dont, they deconstruct the answers they receive and > reconstruct the answers they send. Even with the best of intentions > on everyones part one has to do this to prevent accidental cache > poisoning. Indeed it depends on where your validator lives. If it is part of a recursive resolver and you have an RRset cache then validating what you put in the cache makes sense. If the validator is part of a forwarder or is part of a stub-resolver or if you have a message cache, then validating the entire reply is required (except for the additional section).
- [DNSOP] ordering of RRSets in the answer section … Joe Abley
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Petr Špaček
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Robert Edmonds
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Paul Wouters
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Robert Edmonds
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Peter Thomassen
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Petr Špaček
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Petr Špaček
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Joe Abley
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Florian Weimer
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Joe Abley
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Florian Weimer
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Dave Lawrence
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Florian Weimer
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Mark Andrews
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Libor Peltan
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Warren Kumari
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Ondřej Surý
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Paul Wouters
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… John Levine
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Manu Bretelle
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Joe Abley
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Manu Bretelle
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Florian Weimer
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Petr Špaček
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Mark Andrews
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Mark Andrews
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… John R Levine
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Ángel
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… John Levine
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Florian Weimer
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Ángel
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Joe Abley
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Libor Peltan
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Kevin P. Fleming
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Joe Abley
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Ondřej Surý
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Ángel
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Joe Abley
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… John Levine
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Ángel
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… X L
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Mark Andrews
- [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer sect… Paul Wouters