IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] RFC 3484 section 6 rule 9 causing more operational problems

Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> Wed, 04 March 2009 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <fweimer@bfk.de>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14CD53A698F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:51:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ttQZI92u+mZP for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:51:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx01.bfk.de (mx01.bfk.de [193.227.124.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D35C3A67DF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:51:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx00.int.bfk.de ([10.119.110.2]) by mx01.bfk.de with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) id 1LevFk-0003kf-HX; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:51:32 +0100
Received: from fweimer by bfk.de with local id 1LevFz-0003BP-IE; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:51:47 +0100
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] RFC 3484 section 6 rule 9 causing more operational problems
References: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0903041400220.8701@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20563.1236179832@nsa.vix.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0903041531250.8701@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <25914.1236186707@nsa.vix.com>
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:51:45 +0100
In-Reply-To: <25914.1236186707@nsa.vix.com> (Paul Vixie's message of "Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:11:47 +0000")
Message-ID: <82d4cx18i6.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 09:26:55 -0800
Cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:51:32 -0000

* Paul Vixie:

> neither a client or a server can be guaranteed topology-aware.  dns leaves
> ordering deliberately undefined and encourages applications to use their
> own best judgement.

The "leaves undefined" part is at odds with your previous statement
that RFC 3484 is correct.  It is compliant with the rest of the
protocol zoo, but the order of records, as seen by applications, is
no longer undefined.

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimer@bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email