[dns-operations] ANY efforts at taking additional responses more compact?

[P Vixie]

On September 7, 2016 11:42:58 PM GMT+09:00, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane at dukhovni.org> wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 05:33:48PM +0900, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>> the receiver of an NS RRset is entitled to treat each NSDNAME as the
>name of
>> a host which may be multihomed, and to treat each AAAA or A RRset
>whose
>> owner name corresponds to that NSDNAME as a set of addresses
>belonging to
>> that host. therefore if it hears an ICMP message such as "port
>unreachable"
>> it is entitled to skip all the other addresses associated with that
>NSDNAME.
>> 
>> not all NS RRset receivers behave this way. indeed, many will simply
>unroll
>> the NS/AAAA and NS/A chains, and try them all, come what may.
>
>Is it unreasonably to assume that the majority of implementations
>ignore the names?

Yes, that's unreasonable.

>  And perhaps ignore the few that behave contrary
>to expectation?

Also unreasonable.

>  Maybe also publish an RFC advising implementors
>to not pay any attention to the names when implementing retry
>logic?

Invalidating correct implementations of old and well established specifications should be done almost never, and certainly never for cause as small as this.

Vixie
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.