BIND - sorting of reverse domain.

[Simon Waters]

"D. Stussy" wrote:
> 
> >       Actually putting the SOA first is NOT obvious as it doesn't
> >       sort first when sorting a zone in DNSSEC order.  The A
> >       records come first (type = 1).  As for BIND 8 there is no order
> >       to the records at a node.
> 
> Obviously, someone who needs remedial English. 

Or possibly someone who knows DNS intimately.

> It should have been clear that I
> addressed ONLY the domain name component of the sort and that the RR type
> ordering isn't even being discussed because that is not relevent to the sort
> order of the NAMES.

I think what Mark is referring a case like;

eighth-layer.internal. IN SOA ...
eighth-layer.internal. IN A ...

Clearly the second record sorts first alphabetically as A is
before SOA, or type code 1 is before type code 6, so any sorting
that puts SOA first is pretty arbitary.

> Furthermore, the translation of RR type names into integers (or any other
> transformation) is clearly an artificial operation.

Nah in the protocol is all numbers, the mapping to characters is
the arbitary bit. I guess programmers can represent these
integers anyway they like, but it seems they have chosen to use
integers internally.

> It could just as easily be
> an index or pointer into a list of known types (with unknown types handled
> specially) with a comparison as to index or pointer order.  If in such a list,
> the "SOA" string is placed at the head, the natural sort operation using this
> index would put the SOA RR first. 

Yes we can defined 6 to be before 1, but we're failing to see
the advantage.

> Therefore, any such transformation is
> meaningless in itself (cf. "The A records come first (type = 1).").  It sounds
> as if this concept is beyond your capability of understanding.
 
> I'm not here to bash anyone.  I expect an INTELLIGENT conversation.  It's clear
> that I'm not getting one.

Perhaps this should tell you something about your questions.