* Evan Hunt [2017-02-24 00:24]: > I'd like to start a discussion of that now. Does anyone have a problem > with the idea of clarifying the protocol here, saying that the order of > records in the answer section of a chaining response is significant, and in > particular, that a DNAME MUST precede the corresponding synthesized CNAME?
Do you mean clarifying as in "how it always was meant to be but stated in unclear words" or as in "change to protocol"? In the latter case, you'd still need code to parse responses from implementations that don't make assumptions about the order of records. Regards, Matt
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
