On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 08:45:08AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > section. "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. Indeed, people used to make this mistake with RRsets. I remember a particular registrar when we were bringing up .info trying very hard to get "ns1" to appear "first". They'd delete a host object and reinsert it, check the DNS, and it worked. Then they'd check again, and the order changed! So they'd do the same dance. The question, for the purposes of the protocol definition, is whether a message section (or maybe just the answer section) is an ordered set of unordered RRsets. If so, we probably ought to write that down somewhere, and specify the order, because as near as I can see it never has been specified. I'm not suggesting we try to invalidate lots of deployed software. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
