In message <20150813133446.78c4228...@orac.inputplus.co.uk>, Ralph Corderoy wri
tes:
> Hi Paul,
>
> > >> "added" really does just mean "added" not "inserted".
> > >
> > > I don't know what that means. If you add something to an unordered
> > > set and then ask for the contents of the set, the or
神明達哉 wrote:
> At Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:23:59 -0400,
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> > > So we are in agreement that glibc's stub resolver is acting really dumb
> > > here?
> >
> > I think that's overstating it. It appears that glibc implemented the
> > protocol according to a widely-held but (at lea
Hi Paul,
> >> "added" really does just mean "added" not "inserted".
> >
> > I don't know what that means. If you add something to an unordered
> > set and then ask for the contents of the set, the order you'll get
> > its contents is undefined.
>
> why do you call a section a "set"?
Because it
Hi Mark,
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1034#section-4.3.2 says
> >
> >If the data at the node is a CNAME, and QTYPE doesn't match
> >CNAME, copy the CNAME RR into the answer section of the
> >response, change QNAME to the canonical name in the CNAME RR,
> >and
Hi G,
> How specific is the ordering dependency by resolver code variant? by
> version?
>
> If this becomes a candidate for typing specific resolvers, its useful
> knowledge
It varies quite a bit with the few I looked at, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wdopuAP2ddLlQcdtX-iAWdUULZ8
