* John Levine: > It appears that Libor Peltan <[email protected]> said: >>Anyway, shouldn't we rather go the opposite way of declaring that any >>section of DNS response is unordered (why should the answer section be >>special?) and the receiver MUST be able to find all the wanted info >>regardless -- even in ridiculous cases when the CNAME target is put >>first and the CNAME itself afterwards...? > > It seems to me that if we are going to say anything, we should both say that > caches and forwarders have to emit the records in chain order so that badly > written stubs won't break, and stubs have to accept records in any order so > badly written caches won't break them.
Can stubs just ignore CNAMEs and just extract addresses from A and AAAA records found in the answer section? Assuming that the internal stub interfaces eventually discard CNAME data anyway, that would actually result in a simplified implementation. The current code with CNAME matching allows the upstream server to include unrelated addresses in the answer section that will be ignored. Retaining this behavior, while relaxing the CNAME ordering, requires quite a bit of extra complexity in stubs. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
