Hi Mark,
> > > why do you call a section a "set"?
> >
> > Because it isn't stated anywhere that they're not just a bag of
> > things that are added to, and `added' isn't `append'? It may seem
> > pedantic, but it has helped allow different interpretations to
> > spread over the years.
>
> RFC 103
Hi Paul,
> >> "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"?
Because it
Hi Mark,
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1034#section-4.3.2 says
> >
> >If the data at the node is a CNAME, and QTYPE doesn't match
> >CNAME, copy the CNAME RR into the answer section of the
> >response, change QNAME to the canonical name in the CNAME RR,
> >and
Hi G,
> How specific is the ordering dependency by resolver code variant? by
> version?
>
> If this becomes a candidate for typing specific resolvers, its useful
> knowledge
It varies quite a bit with the few I looked at, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wdopuAP2ddLlQcdtX-iAWdUULZ8
Hi Miek,
> So this discussion stems from this issue:
> https://github.com/skynetservices/skydns/issues/217
I deliberately didn't mention that so as to avoid getting into specifics
of one case when it clearly seems to be a more general issue. :-)
> And apparently the glibc resolver assume this i
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > That still leaves open the question of whether the stub resolvers
> > can assume, as many have apparently been doing for years, that they
> > will be given CNAME before A.
...
> but I don't think there's any promise anywhere about what order the
> RRsets come
Hi Viktor,
> > Go implements its own resolver rather than use the local libc's,
> > e.g. glibc's. All of them are stub resolvers, yes, but if asked to
> > look up foo.bar.local and /etc/resolv.conf has only the
> > authoritative bar.local server in it then they get an authoritative
> > response
