> On 13 May 2021, at 07:46, Joe Abley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 12 May 2021, at 17:39, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It appears that Joe Abley <[email protected]> said:
>>
>>> Do you know of an example of a DNS authoritative or recursive server that
>>> does return truncated RRSets in the ANSWER section?
>>
>> A lot return truncated glue in the ADDITIONAL section. Are we sure that
>> wouldn't be an issue with SVCB?
>> I honestly don't know.
>
> I agree that truncation in the ADDITIONAL section is expected. Since the SVCB
> is expected to be used in RRSets with more than one member RR (different SVCB
> RRs with the same owner name and class are explicitly contemplated by the
> draft) it already has to accommodate that (which I think is probably a noop,
> since it doesn't seem to me that SVCB has different requirements in that
> regard to any other RRType).
>
> I think Brian's point was that you can rely upon RRSets being intact in the
> ANSWER section.
If TC=0, RRsets should always be complete even in the Additional section.
If TC=1, then you may see incomplete RRsets and only in the last section
with records excluding the presence any OPT/SIG/TSIG in the additional
section.
If you see a implementation doing differently then it is broken.
Note IXFR and AXFR may spread a RRset over multiple DNS messages.
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
