Re: [DNSOP] order of records in DNAME responses

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Fri, 24 February 2017 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <each@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8C11293E4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:00:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 Vif2nxyQHOgt for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:00:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2589A1293EE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:00:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A4723494AE; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:00:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id 4D73C216C1C; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:00:32 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:00:32 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Matth=E4us?= Wander <matthaeus.wander@uni-due.de>
Message-ID: <20170224170031.GA55999@isc.org>
References: <20170223232432.GA41294@isc.org> <8c600688-2ec3-141e-82af-d0b73a9ca865@uni-due.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <8c600688-2ec3-141e-82af-d0b73a9ca865@uni-due.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Hkb0j1u8Do14djtjakxsfBBXN64>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] order of records in DNAME responses
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 24 Feb 2017 17:00:36 -0000

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:40:26AM +0100, Matthäus Wander wrote:
> Do you mean clarifying as in "how it always was meant to be but stated
> in unclear words" or as in "change to protocol"?

I meant the former.  I wasn't involved, but I suspect that DNAME-first
was the intended behavior all along, and nobody thought to mention it.
However, if the group doesn't agree, then I guess I mean the latter.

> In the latter case, you'd still need code to parse responses from
> implementations that don't make assumptions about the order of records.

What I'd like is to be able to send FORMERR with a clear conscience.

-- 
Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.