Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 08:45:08AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: >> section. "added" really does just mean "added" not "inserted". > > I don't know what that means. If you add something to an unordered > set and then ask for the contents of the set, the order you'll get its > contents is undefined.
why do you call a section a "set"? within an rrset, order doesn't matter, because rrsets are "sets". within a section, one adds to the end, appending rrsets. order should probably not matter, but it has mattered for a long time and any sender who either scrambles the rr's so that sets are not contiguous or places cname rrsets after the targets they point to is going to lose. > ... > > The question, for the purposes of the protocol definition, is whether > a message section (or maybe just the answer section) is an ordered set > of unordered RRsets. If so, we probably ought to write that down > somewhere, and specify the order, because as near as I can see it > never has been specified. i agree, this ought to be written down somewhere. both the contiguity of rrsets, and their ordering within sections, should not have mattered, but now does, due to naive implementors (like me-- i'm the author of the code jinmei posted that freebsd link to a few hours ago.) -- Paul Vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
