Re: [dnsext] RFC 3484 section 6 rule 9 causing more operational problems

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



 my error here - Paul said DNS does no ordering... he did not specify 
ordering of what.  we now return you to your rant.

--bill


On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 07:54:37PM +0000, Chris Thompson wrote:
> On Mar 4 2009, OndEej SurC= wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:57 PM, <bmanning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
> >>        DNSSEC does reorder RRSets within a zone.  Which is a new feature.
> >
> >When we started talking about order of RRSets?  This is purely discussion
> >about order of RRs in RRSet. Order of RRSets in zone is irrelevant before
> >DNSSEC and also after DNSSEC. Nothing depends on order of RRSets
> >at least in my best knowledge.
> 
> I took Bill to mean "DNSSEC does reorder RRs within an RRset" anyway, as
> I don't know in what other sense DNSSEC is relevant at all.
> 
> But the canonical ordering of RRs within an RRset for signing purposes
> says nothing about the presentation order in the answers to DNS queries.
> And in fact a certain well-known nameserver implementation not unassociated
> with Paul still supports all the rrset-order and sortlist controls, which
> work for secured zones as well as unsecured ones.
> 
> -- 
> Chris Thompson
> Email: cet1@xxxxxxxxx
> 
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]