> On Feb 23, 2017, at 3:24 PM, Evan Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd like to start a discussion of that now. Does anyone have a problem > with the idea of clarifying the protocol here, saying that the order of > records in the answer section of a chaining response is significant, and in > particular, that a DNAME MUST precede the corresponding synthesized CNAME?
Hi Evan, Even though I think "be liberal in what you accept" has been sort of harmful, I've always felt that the ordering of RRsets in a message should not matter at all. Also I worry that once we start clarifying ordering for the case you've proposed, we'll find a lot of other cases where ordering could be made to matter. CNAME and its target, for example. SRV and its target(s). RRSIGs and the records they cover. NSEC* enclosers. And so on. DW _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
