Subject: Re: RFC 2782: SRV naming convention

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 14:58:46 -0700

% DNS itself makes no promises at all about ordering of RRs within an
% RRset, so a name server can present the RRs in any order it likes.

	Don't current DNSSEC implementations and specifications change
	this "promise"?

% Hope this clarifies things a bit.
% 
% --Rob

--bill
ps: this e-mail is not in accordance with the all requirements of section 10
of RFC2026 ... in particular, I haven't given due credit to those who taught
me to read and write (frankly, I don't remember who they were), and vast
numbers of other people, all of whom contributed to my getting to where I
am today...  However, I make no copyright claims to it, use it how you will.
I also have no patents, pending or issued, on any of the technology (or ever
ideas) discussed herein.  "IETF" might be a trade mark, so might "RFC", but
they don't belong to me.

to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 18:45:46 -0700

> 	Don't current DNSSEC implementations and specifications change

No Bill, DNSSEC specifies an order among the records for signing and
verification purposes not on what order records are presented. 

	Olafur

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 18:44:17 -0700

> 	Don't current DNSSEC implementations and specifications change

	No.  The server is still free to return the records in any order
	it feels like.

	The only thing DNSSEC does is define the order the records are
	feed crypto support to compute / verify a signature.

	Mark

--
Mark Andrews, Nominum Inc.
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]