In message <20150812004858.gl5...@mx2.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 08:12:20PM +0100, Miek Gieben wrote: > > > > So this discussion stems from this issue: > > https://github.com/skynetservices/skydns/issues/217 > > > > And apparently the glibc resolver assume this is ordering is in effect. > > I wonder what it does if the RRSIG moves around. (Sorry, I couldn't > resist.)
RFC 3045 3.1.1. Including RRSIG RRs in a Response > It seems to me that it would be nice to issue an update to something > (I seem to recall someone wanted to open up 2181, but that's not what > I had in mind) stating explicitly that, when an answer section > contains multiple RRsets, here's how you order them. I suspect the > answer will be, "You don't," since I can't imagine a principle by > which we could determine this (what if there's a new special > processing case in the future?). Putting the CNAME first doesn't even > respect alphabetical or numeric order, so that's no use either. Boo. In the processing order as described in RFC 1034 Section ?.?.? Algorithm s/Add/Append/ and there is no dispute. I doubt anyone thought "Add" meant insert before records already in the answer and adjust compression pointers in the existing records. Mark > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > a...@anvilwalrusden.com > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
