On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 08:17:28AM +0000, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> wrote a message of 57 lines which said:
> By the way, is it the case that CNAMEs in the answer section MUST > appear in their natural chaining order: Very good question but, IMHO, it is thread-stealing (hence changing the subject, and removing thread headers). > irrelevant CNAME responses that are even part of the chain, ... You mean _not_ even part of the chain? > Or put another way, does step "3 a" of Section 4.3.2 of RFC 1034 > imply This algorithm seems to be for a resolver querying authoritative servers, and therefore does not address your issue (which is for a final client). _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
