On 2/24/17, 12:35, "Evan Hunt" wrote:
> Well, that's why I started with an email thread...
I'm certainly *not* saying: "Don't do it!" (Sorry for the double negative.)
But the hours spent writing the code to handle the issue might be less than the
hours spent "producing" the clarification
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:46:28PM +, Edward Lewis wrote:
> The reason I point this out is that the order of records in a section has
> been famously undefined, with the convention of supporting round robin
> (an undocumented feature of the protocol) hanging around, for all of
> eternity. I
> On Feb 23, 2017, at 3:24 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
>
> I'd like to start a discussion of that now. Does anyone have a problem
> with the idea of clarifying the protocol here, saying that the order of
> records in the answer section of a chaining response is significant, and in
>
On 2/24/17, 12:00, "DNSOP on behalf of Evan Hunt" wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:40:26AM +0100, Matthäus Wander wrote:
>> Do you mean clarifying as in "how it always was meant to be but stated
>> in unclear words" or as in
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:40:26AM +0100, Matthäus Wander wrote:
> Do you mean clarifying as in "how it always was meant to be but stated
> in unclear words" or as in "change to protocol"?
I meant the former. I wasn't involved, but I suspect that DNAME-first
was the intended behavior all along,
On 2/23/17, 18:24, "DNSOP on behalf of Evan Hunt" wrote:
>I'd like to start a discussion of that now. Does anyone have a problem
>with the idea of clarifying the protocol here, saying that the order of
>records in the answer section of a
* Evan Hunt [2017-02-24 00:24]:
> I'd like to start a discussion of that now. Does anyone have a problem
> with the idea of clarifying the protocol here, saying that the order of
> records in the answer section of a chaining response is significant, and in
> particular, that a DNAME MUST precede