Re: [DNSOP] Mandated order of CNAME records in a CNAME chain?
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 30 September 2016 16:25 UTC
Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 E231912B40E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 09:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 aWN9r5xSfPqM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 09:25:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC1FE12B420 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 09:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 23611 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2016 16:25:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 30 Sep 2016 16:25:01 -0000
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:24:41 -0000
Message-ID: <20160930162441.16947.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20160930054450.GU4670@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/rkSWvr7Rb0TDLKG2SQOCSCdmmkk>
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: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:25:13 -0000
>I'm inclined to conclude (as suggested off-list) that, while it >may be prudent to parse conservatively, and not make ordering >assumptions, in fact less tolerant stub resolvers are sufficiently >common and so one would likely get away with assuming natural >ordering. So perhaps doing it right is not entirely overkill... This strikes me as an obvious place to apply the hoary robustness principle. It's not very expensive to do a topological sort of the CNAMEs at each end in case the other end didn't or won't. R's, John
- [DNSOP] Mandated order of CNAME records in a CNAM… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Mandated order of CNAME records in a … Robert Edmonds
- Re: [DNSOP] Mandated order of CNAME records in a … Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [DNSOP] Mandated order of CNAME records in a … John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Mandated order of CNAME records in a … Florian Weimer
- Re: [DNSOP] Mandated order of CNAME records in a … Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Mandated order of CNAME records in a … John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Mandated order of CNAME records in a … Florian Weimer