On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:04 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> we now return you to your rant. Sorry, if I sounded too harsh. my error here - Paul said DNS does no ordering... he did not specify > ordering of what. Order of RRs in zone file is not relevant for the order "on the wire". DNS (as in DNS protocol) does no ordering. Ondrej. > --bill > > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 07:54:37PM +0000, Chris Thompson wrote: > > On Mar 4 2009, OndE ej SurC= wrote: > > > > >On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:57 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > [...] > > >> DNSSEC does reorder RRSets within a zone. Which is a new > feature. > > > > > >When we started talking about order of RRSets? This is purely > discussion > > >about order of RRs in RRSet. Order of RRSets in zone is irrelevant > before > > >DNSSEC and also after DNSSEC. Nothing depends on order of RRSets > > >at least in my best knowledge. > > > > I took Bill to mean "DNSSEC does reorder RRs within an RRset" anyway, as > > I don't know in what other sense DNSSEC is relevant at all. > > > > But the canonical ordering of RRs within an RRset for signing purposes > > says nothing about the presentation order in the answers to DNS queries. > > And in fact a certain well-known nameserver implementation not > unassociated > > with Paul still supports all the rrset-order and sortlist controls, which > > work for secured zones as well as unsecured ones. > > > > -- > > Chris Thompson > > Email: [email protected] > > > -- Ondrej Sury technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:[email protected] http://nic.cz/ sip:[email protected] <sip%[email protected]> tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
