[DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer section of a DNS response

[Joe Abley <[e-mail]>]

On 15 Jan 2026, at 11:52, Libor Peltan <libor.peltan=[e-mail]> wrote:

> I think that you are motivated by the scale how the broken clients are wide-spread, and how crippled upgrade policies prevent upgrading them in reasonable time. However, writing and publishing an RFC also doesn't happen in a short time.

Yes, that's totally the motivation. 

I think of this as an investment in the future; if we can avoid future disasters (even small ones) by making a decision now, I think the return on investment is reasonable. 

If we had done this in 2015 there's at least a chance that 1.1.1.1 would have had a test to prevent the release that caused things to break last week. If we do this in 2025 perhaps there's some DNS service operator in 2035 that will quietly thank us :-)

> If we however decide to go ahead with this document, I'd like to have it more limited in scope (perhaps only recursive-to-stub responses, maybe only CNAME and DNAME, no effect on DNSSEC) and clearly explaining (with examples! of correct and incorrect responses) what are the consequences and what aren't, for example to SVCB alias-form, non-standard ALIAS records etc etc. The current wording is so general that I can't event say if some response complies or not.

I am fine with all of that and I agree it's important that the advice be well-scoped and actionable. 

Thanks,


Joe