On 26.3.2015 07:26, Paul Vixie wrote: > Evan Hunt wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 05:24:32PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: >> > ... >>> >> that would be an overspecification. the spec should simply say "any >>> >> RRset, where the choice of which RRset is implementation-dependent". >>> >> some might go for oldest; some for smallest; some for first. >> > >> > My one suggestion is that it not be random; for any given set of >> > two more more types at a node, a succession of ANY queries should >> > all get back the same response. (Otherwise there's an unnecessary >> > increase in leaked information, and RRL might not count the responses >> > as duplicates.) That's why I initially suggested "numerically smallest >> > rrtype present", but any repeatable selection criteria would be fine. > > you make an excellent point. so, the spec might ask for repeatability, > but not specify how that's to be achieved.
I think the repeatable selection criteria should be specified exactly, so that all authoritative servers for one zone would return the same result regardless the server implementation. This also means, that the selection criteria should be RR type/content based. Some information (e.g., RR creation or age) is not preserved on zone transfers. Jan _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
