Re: [DNSOP] order of records in DNAME responses

> 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] order of records in DNAME responses

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] order of records in DNAME responses

* 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

[DNSOP] order of records in DNAME responses

RFC 6672 saith: A CNAME RR with Time to Live (TTL) equal to the corresponding DNAME RR is synthesized and included in the answer section when the DNAME is employed as a substitution instruction. The DNSSEC specification ([RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035]) says that the synthesized