On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:46:28PM +0000, Edward Lewis wrote: > The reason I point this out is that the order of records in a section has > been famously undefined, with the convention of supporting round robin > (an undocumented feature of the protocol) hanging around, for all of > eternity. I can see an implementation recommendation note because it > makes sense, but, if we use the old rule of "for interoperability" I > don't see specifying the order of records as necessary.
The order of RR's within an RRset is undefined and needs to remain so, but can there be constraints on the order of RRsets within a section? > I also think that goats have already left the burning barn on this. > Going forward code might put the DNAME ahead of the CNAME, but if past > code doesn't, going forward code must account for that. It took us a very long time to encounter the first server that did CNAME-first. Most are going to do DNAME-first because it's simpler to code that way: it's easier to append to a message than insert something into the middle. IMHO the problem is now big enough to see, but still small enough to step on by declaring we didn't mean for it to be legal. > Not to mention the difficulties in writing so-called clarification > documents. They aren't all that pleasant... Well, that's why I started with an email thread... -- Evan Hunt -- [email protected] Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
