Comment by linsomniac
19 days ago
>While in our interpretation the RFCs do not require CNAMEs to appear in any particular order
That seems like some doubling-down BS to me, since they earlier say "It's ambiguous because it doesn't use MUST or SHOULD, which was introduced a decade after the DNS RFC." The RFC says:
>The answer to the query, possibly preface by one or more CNAME RRs that specify aliases encountered on the way to an answer.
How do you get to interpreting that, in the face of "MUST" being defined a decade later, as "I guess I can append the CNAME to the answer?
Holding onto "we still think the RFC allows it" is a problem. The world is a lot better if you can just admit to your mistakes and move on. I try to model this at home and at work, because trying to "language lawyer" your way out of being wrong makes the world a worse place.
The RFC is also 39 years old! At this point, DNS is what existing software expects it to be, not what someone proposed in the mid-eighties. The fact that they did not have any testing to match exact byte-by-byte responses with existing behavior and other DNS resolvers for this layer of service is massively irresponsible.