On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 05:24:32PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > i didn't want to be the first to say so, since a lot of the ideas i like > are ugly ducklings. but since others have chimed in positively, i'll add > my voice: this is a beautiful swan.
Thanks. :) > that would be an overspecification. the spec should simply say "any > RRset, where the choice of which RRset is implementation-dependent". > some might go for oldest; some for smallest; some for first. My one suggestion is that it not be random; for any given set of two more more types at a node, a succession of ANY queries should all get back the same response. (Otherwise there's an unnecessary increase in leaked information, and RRL might not count the responses as duplicates.) That's why I initially suggested "numerically smallest rrtype present", but any repeatable selection criteria would be fine. -- Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
