I agree with you, and I also think that their interpretation of example 6.2.1 in the RFC is somewhat nonsensical. It states that “The difference in ordering of the RRs in the answer section is not significant.” But from the RFC, very clearly this comment is relevant only to that particular example; it is comparing two responses and saying that in this case, the different ordering has no semantic effect.
And perhaps this is somewhat pedantic, but they also write that “RFC 1034 section 3.6 defines Resource Record Sets (RRsets) as collections of records with the same name, type, and class.” But looking at the RFC, it never defines such a term; it does say that within a “set” of RRs “associated with a particular name” the order doesn’t matter. But even if the RFC had said “associated with a particular combination of name, type, and class”, I don’t see how that could have introduced ambiguity. It specifies an exception to a general rule, so obviously if the exception doesn’t apply, then the general rule must be followed.
Anyway, Cloudflare probably know their DNS better than I do, but I did not find the article especially persuasive; I think the ambiguity is actually just a misreading, and that the RFC does require a particular ordering of CNAME records.
(ETA:) Although admittedly, while the RFC does say that CNAMEs must come before As in the answer, I don’t necessarily see any clear rule about how CNAME chains must be ordered; the RFC just says “Domain names in RRs which point at another name should always point at the primary name and not the alias ... Of course, by the robustness principle, domain software should not fail when presented with CNAME chains or loops; CNAME chains should be followed”. So actually I guess I do agree that there is some ambiguity about the responses containing CNAME chains.
The authors actually do briefly mention this concern in the section titled 3.7 Algorithm extensions (under Log truncation):
> However, in practice it is easy to truncate the log, because apply_op only examines the log prefix of operations whose timestamp is greater than that of the operation being applied. Thus, once it is known that all future operations will have a timestamp greater than t, then operations with timestamp t or less can be discarded from the log.
The main issue seems to be that we need to know about all the replicas that we want to be able to synchronize with - but I guess there isn't really a way around this.
My understanding[1] is that you would not use only a Lamport timestamp but rather a tuple (Lamport, actor ID), where the actor ID is a globally unique per-node ID (say, a UUID), which would then be used as a tiebreaker in cases where comparing by the Lamport timestamp alone would give an ambiguous ordering.
This should not be problematic, since the Lamport timestamps are only equal in cases where there is guaranteed to be no causal relationship between the events (i.e. the user did not see the effects of one event before submitting the next event), so it's fine to pick the ordering arbitrarily.
> This is because sub-par VR technology (e.g. the Quest 2) is simply not good enough for someone wanting to work several hours per day in a VR Computer instead of their laptop -- even if most people don't realize this yet.
Do you mean that the Quest 2 is good enough to do, say, programming work on for several hours a day, or just that it's a decently good gaming headset?
The last VR headset I tried was the Oculus Rift, and that was nowhere near being usable for work. I'm really curious about the SimulaVR, but it's a bit outside my price range. So if you use the Quest 2 for work, I'd love to hear about your experience with it -- what software do you use, is the resolution good enough for working with text for hours at a time, etc.
And perhaps this is somewhat pedantic, but they also write that “RFC 1034 section 3.6 defines Resource Record Sets (RRsets) as collections of records with the same name, type, and class.” But looking at the RFC, it never defines such a term; it does say that within a “set” of RRs “associated with a particular name” the order doesn’t matter. But even if the RFC had said “associated with a particular combination of name, type, and class”, I don’t see how that could have introduced ambiguity. It specifies an exception to a general rule, so obviously if the exception doesn’t apply, then the general rule must be followed.
Anyway, Cloudflare probably know their DNS better than I do, but I did not find the article especially persuasive; I think the ambiguity is actually just a misreading, and that the RFC does require a particular ordering of CNAME records.
(ETA:) Although admittedly, while the RFC does say that CNAMEs must come before As in the answer, I don’t necessarily see any clear rule about how CNAME chains must be ordered; the RFC just says “Domain names in RRs which point at another name should always point at the primary name and not the alias ... Of course, by the robustness principle, domain software should not fail when presented with CNAME chains or loops; CNAME chains should be followed”. So actually I guess I do agree that there is some ambiguity about the responses containing CNAME chains.