It appears that Libor Peltan <[email protected]> said: >Anyway, shouldn't we rather go the opposite way of declaring that any >section of DNS response is unordered (why should the answer section be >special?) and the receiver MUST be able to find all the wanted info >regardless -- even in ridiculous cases when the CNAME target is put >first and the CNAME itself afterwards...?
It seems to me that if we are going to say anything, we should both say that caches and forwarders have to emit the records in chain order so that badly written stubs won't break, and stubs have to accept records in any order so badly written caches won't break them. This is one of the few situtations I can think of where Postel's principle really applies, since the spec is unclear. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
