On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 05:09:00PM +0100, Tony Finch <d...@dotat.at> wrote a message of 80 lines which said:
> A client queries its resolver for dotat.at A, but chiark has > renumbered, so the client gets a response from the ANAME-aware > resolver like below. A validating ANAME-aware client can see it > should use the additional address 212.13.197.231 in preference to > the address in the answer. Cute trick. I love it. But it modifies the rules for response credibility (the most credible response is in the additionnal section, not in the answer section). Should we update RFC 2181, section 5.4.1? I tend to think that the A record, in that example, should be treated exactly like glue, by a ANAME-aware client. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
