IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> Wed, 14 January 2026 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
X-Original-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB843A7A37CC; Wed, 14 Jan 2026 09:11:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eXsTahhGKw7q; Wed, 14 Jan 2026 09:11:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cygnus.enyo.de (cygnus.enyo.de [79.140.189.114]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05170A7A37BD; Wed, 14 Jan 2026 09:11:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.17.203.2] (port=53289 helo=deneb.enyo.de) by albireo.enyo.de ([172.17.140.2]) with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) id 1vg4Ot-00000000fad-2zwv; Wed, 14 Jan 2026 17:11:21 +0000
Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from <fw@deneb.enyo.de>) id 1vg4Ov-00000000AXV-0jrs; Wed, 14 Jan 2026 18:11:21 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Joe Abley <jabley=40strandkip.nl@dmarc.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <9175DF63-77F9-4B4C-9EA9-76B30F941F84@strandkip.nl> (Joe Abley's message of "Wed, 14 Jan 2026 15:58:29 +0100")
References: <9175DF63-77F9-4B4C-9EA9-76B30F941F84@strandkip.nl>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 18:11:21 +0100
Message-ID: <875x94rufa.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-ID-Hash: PO3HF6QJJ657TV3IDELWQGMJ4B3IS425
X-Message-ID-Hash: PO3HF6QJJ657TV3IDELWQGMJ4B3IS425
X-MailFrom: fw@deneb.enyo.de
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: ordering of RRSets in the answer section of a DNS response
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/xFlnhzpL0VnIuykVqBreG6RfJiE>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>

* Joe Abley:

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jabley-dnsop-ordered-answer-section/
>
> The new draft is essentially the old draft plus references to last
> week's observed impact with reference to Cloudflare's comments above
> and a description of the impact from cisco (whose ethernet switches
> were the ones rebooting).

I think it's been previously observed that compression is not actually
optional in practice, that is, the first answer record needs to start
with 0xc0 0x0c.  It's not really related to ordering, but it fits
the underlying theme of producing maximally compatible responses.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status