Thanks for the suggestions! However: On Jan 21, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Colm MacCárthaigh <c...@allcosts.net> wrote: > RRSet: Are the RRs in an RRSet required to have different data? For > types such as A/AAAA/SRV/MX this makes sense, but maybe not for TXT. I > also think views and other implementation specific features confuse > things here. A user might have 10 A records defined for a given name; > but if their DNS server returns one at a time (say it's using weighted > round robin) - I don't think of the 10 as an RRSet; but rather it's 10 > RRSets. What's actually sent on the wire is what matters, I think.
Note that, when possible, our document is reproducing what is in the standards-track RFCs. You might want a different definition for a term, but if there is a non-confusing definition already, our document should use it. In this case, the RFC 2181 definition is refreshingly clear, and what you are describing would be a thing that is not an RRset and maybe should have a different term. We are, in fact, making up some terms in the document, but only in cases where there is a well-known thing that doesn't have a term. I don't think your round-robin example is such a thing, but if others disagree and can come up with a new term, we can add it. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
