> While I personally believe that the records should be able to > appear in any old order within a section, it seem that some > things go BOOM if you don't put thing in just the right way. > So, to me, a document which says something like "While records > are ethnically unordered, if you want your implementation to > work in the real world, you need to put them in this order A > B C.". Yes, this is technical debt, but glibc style things > have been around for ever, and are likely to remain on the Big-I > Internet for the long foreseeable future[0].
I wonder if the draft is trying to be too general. The specific issue that triggered this is the ordering of the CNAME chain with respect to the final RRset. I think there is a lot of value in having this ordering. It allows stub resolvers to be simple. And we know that every recursive resolver already implements this because otherwise stuff breaks. However, I think it is best if the draft limits itself to CNAMEs. The draft can refer to the DNAME RFC for how to place DNAMEs but not add any requirements. We don't seem to have a problem with DNAMEs. The draft can also be silent about RRSIGs, because validators know how to deal with those, no need to say anything. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
