IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws> Thu, 29 September 2016 13:03 UTC

Return-Path: <edmonds@mycre.ws>
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 7050D12B0EC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 06:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.218
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 NqbLdeauDsn9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 06:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mycre.ws (mycre.ws [45.33.102.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46A5D12B100 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 06:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by chase.mycre.ws (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B791312C0E1D; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:03:33 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:03:33 -0400
From: Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20160929130333.qsrjntfgmrobj7i2@mycre.ws>
References: <20160929123532.GD22645@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160929123532.GD22645@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/WXxaFO0KVdyGpCwCPiZxAkPMSXs>
Subject: Re: [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 13:03:39 -0000

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> 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).

I think there was already a thread on this topic recently on this list
("Order of CNAME and A in Authoritative Reply" from August 2015). There
was some discussion over "adding" versus "appending" and it was pointed
out that a lot of existing code (e.g., the BSD stub resolver) was
written using the "add at the end" meaning.

-- 
Robert Edmonds

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email