to the extent that the dns technical community has a choice about
default behaviour, we should consider the costs to the rest of the
internet community of each default.
in my prior e-mail to this thread i gave examples of assumptions of
ordering that were violated by the first round-robin implementation. in
both cases, the assumption was dangerous -- led to fragility. (leaving a
bad NS in an RRset, and putting verses of poetry in TXT RRsets.)
assumptions of non-ordering are less dangerous. (expect load balancing
and don't get it.)
we should, if we can engage on the topic of defaults at all, recommend a
default that is compatible with less-dangerous assumptions.
in other words we should re-order rrsets by default, so that very few
people or agents are ever prone to think their order is stable. the spec
says they are unordered, but human nature says, expect more of what
you're seeing.
vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
