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

Paul Vixie <vixie@tisf.net> Thu, 05 November 2015 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <vixie@tisf.net>
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 F409B1B3C27 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 14:04:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 VoQNWN6ZZHT1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 14:04:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85E2D1B2C44 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 14:04:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from linux-85bq.suse (unknown [50.242.68.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CBD413B44; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 22:04:20 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@tisf.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 14:04:20 -0800
Message-ID: <3330849.lFpNtEzbQ8@linux-85bq.suse>
Organization: TISF
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.12-1-default; KDE/4.14.10; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <563B58FE.50905@bellis.me.uk>
References: <1E5B644E-EA0D-4287-8AB5-1907EE06BE1C@hopcount.ca> <563B58FE.50905@bellis.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/DXARLIumr9WER2jqi2GONIq3aoo>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 15:35:10 -0800
Cc: 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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 22:04:22 -0000

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