On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:04 PM, <bmanning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sorry, if I sounded too harsh.
we now return you to your rant.
Sorry, if I sounded too harsh.
my error here - Paul said DNS does no ordering... he did not specify
ordering of what.
Order of RRs in zone file is not relevant for the order "on the wire".
DNS (as in DNS protocol) does no ordering.
Ondrej.
DNS (as in DNS protocol) does no ordering.
Ondrej.
--bill
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 07:54:37PM +0000, Chris Thompson wrote:
> On Mar 4 2009, OndE ej 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
>
--
Ondrej Sury
technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer
-----------------------------------------
CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry
Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic
mailto:ondrej.sury@xxxxxx http://nic.cz/
sip:ondrej.sury@xxxxxx tel:+420.222745110
mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112
-----------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf