[DNSOP] Mandated order of CNAME records in a CNAME chain?

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 29 September 2016 12:36 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF3B912B482 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gsIub4gFtGhs for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org []) (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 3D24112B10C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 816FE31D66; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:36:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by godin (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 77B97EC0B75; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:35:32 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:35:32 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20160929123532.GD22645@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 16.04 (xenial)
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/V5a7H8uK9252tczo9NacfjzIcbg>
Subject: [DNSOP] Mandated order of CNAME records in a CNAME chain?
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: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 12:36:30 -0000

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 08:17:28AM +0000,
 Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> wrote 
 a message of 57 lines which said:

> By the way, is it the case that CNAMEs in the answer section MUST
> appear in their natural chaining order:

Very good question but, IMHO, it is thread-stealing (hence changing
the subject, and removing thread headers).

> irrelevant CNAME responses that are even part of the chain, ...

You mean _not_ even part of the chain?

> Or put another way, does step "3 a" of Section 4.3.2 of RFC 1034
> imply

This algorithm seems to be for a resolver querying authoritative
servers, and therefore does not address your issue (which is for a
final client).