On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 07:45:09AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> RFC 1034 says to add to the answer. Not added to a list that will
> then be compiled into a answer with possible reordering once all
> the records have been collected.
But as I already pointed out upthread, Mark, "add" does not mean "add
at the end".
That is, if I say "add 2 to 3", you can do "2+3" or "3+2". They're
both equally right, and I don't see where in 1034 or 1035 there is
evidence to the contrary.
Your very invocation of an example from 1034 gives a nice illustration
of this:
> RFC 1034, 6.2.7. QNAME=USC-ISIC.ARPA, QTYPE=A show a CNAME response
[…]
The very same section also has this example, but from another server:
+---------------------------------------------------+
Header | OPCODE=SQUERY, RESPONSE, AA |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Question | QNAME=USC-ISIC.ARPA., QCLASS=IN, QTYPE=A |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Answer | USC-ISIC.ARPA. 86400 IN CNAME C.ISI.EDU. |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Authority | ISI.EDU. 172800 IN NS VAXA.ISI.EDU. |
| NS A.ISI.EDU. |
| NS VENERA.ISI.EDU. |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Additional | VAXA.ISI.EDU. 172800 A 10.2.0.27 |
| 172800 A 128.9.0.33 |
| VENERA.ISI.EDU. 172800 A 10.1.0.52 |
| 172800 A 128.9.0.32 |
| A.ISI.EDU. 172800 A 26.3.0.103 |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Do you want to say that the data in the Authority section is ordered?
Presumably not. You might argue there that the RRs there are part of
an RRset (though of course 1024 doesn't make that clear) and therefore
are necessarily unordered. But what about the different RRsets in the
Additional section? Why are they in that order?
IMO There is just an ambiguity in the RFCs, and I think it should be
fixed. I understand that you think it's clear (and even why you do),
but I think your understanding stems from what you think is the
natural way to implement that specification. If you had different
background or other things were more natual to you, you might come to
a different conclusion. And if you think it's perfectly clear,
anyway, what is your possible objection to someone writing down the
clarification you don't need? Especially when it's someone who hasn't
historically participated a lot here and who appears to be offering to
do free work?
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
