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

P Vixie paul at redbarn.org
Wed Sep 7 15:05:27 UTC 2016

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
>> 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
>> it is entitled to skip all the other addresses associated with that
>> not all NS RRset receivers behave this way. indeed, many will simply
>> 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

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

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

More information about the dns-operations mailing list