At Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:54:18 -0800, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Colm MacCárthaigh <c...@allcosts.net> wrote: > > RRSet: Are the RRs in an RRSet required to have different data? For > > types such as A/AAAA/SRV/MX this makes sense, but maybe not for TXT. I > > also think views and other implementation specific features confuse > > things here. A user might have 10 A records defined for a given name; > > but if their DNS server returns one at a time (say it's using weighted > > round robin) - I don't think of the 10 as an RRSet; but rather it's 10 > > RRSets. What's actually sent on the wire is what matters, I think. > > Note that, when possible, our document is reproducing what is in the > standards-track RFCs. You might want a different definition for a term, but > if there is a non-confusing definition already, our document should use it. > In this case, the RFC 2181 definition is refreshingly clear, and what you are > describing would be a thing that is not an RRset and maybe should have a > different term. +1. I'd also note that if we extended the definition of the term "RRset" so it can contain duplicate RDATA, it would break Section 6.3 of RFC4034: [RFC2181] specifies that an RRset is not allowed to contain duplicate records (multiple RRs with the same owner name, class, type, and RDATA). Therefore, if an implementation detects duplicate RRs when putting the RRset in canonical form, it MUST treat this as a protocol error. I guess there may be other normative text that relies on this definition. So, if we had any specific reason to name the concept of a "set of RRs that can contain duplicate RDATA", that should be something different than "RRset". -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
