Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] order of records in DNAME responses

2017-02-24 Thread Edward Lewis
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

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] order of records in DNAME responses

2017-02-24 Thread Evan Hunt
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

Re: [DNSOP] order of records in DNAME responses

2017-02-24 Thread Wessels, Duane
> 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 >

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: order of records in DNAME responses

2017-02-24 Thread Edward Lewis
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

Re: [DNSOP] order of records in DNAME responses

2017-02-24 Thread Evan Hunt
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,

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] order of records in DNAME responses

2017-02-24 Thread Edward Lewis
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

Re: [DNSOP] order of records in DNAME responses

2017-02-24 Thread Matthäus Wander
* 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