Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex?
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 08 February 2019 17:07 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F121112867A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:07:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=p3BwyGYl; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=XG/KbmnN
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9yztpPzcleXN for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:07:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9271200ED for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:07:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com (tunnel414165-pt.tunnel.tserv5.lon1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f08:1315::2]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x18H6tO3008257 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:07:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1549645628; x=1549732028; bh=h9cggrwexmvI/EU4FqUEdYTbY41puFqDcTM8htJzkMI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=p3BwyGYly6xl1GN8GIOnbhgLzH3G6YIxTJ3QQsBGCEy7hdZOHUaMSWACwZjHldc0K +KgtNbYnEc8PvuORFMLjhkMyiNKAxU3UHxY1iF3MOrFTBRC0aUDz/y5XIxH6hLxman 6JEw4nlLNlJzli3GEmRDd4LQtLsablpIV70Hnox4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1549645628; x=1549732028; i=@elandsys.com; bh=h9cggrwexmvI/EU4FqUEdYTbY41puFqDcTM8htJzkMI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=XG/KbmnNVr3O5G3CPjDdWyDAlSOP7L6xBZKgJCawpDRkvbCQ/zepUJqm5MN/tdH8h CqfNzcspoCdREhTy3bYapkggJTysAv4F+slK5w+mVJ7b8yZKfYfL7EEnRrbIS2v7nf OTPnjFQ9iIHApqSJZyBq8L1tUMdFo0ln/7pDCbQQ=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190208083642.0db88e00@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 09:06:20 -0800
To: "\"Petr pacek\"" <petr.spacek@nic.cz>, dnsop@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <fcd790a2-414b-491e-01e2-9aa92f7b1c4e@nic.cz>
References: <fcd790a2-414b-491e-01e2-9aa92f7b1c4e@nic.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/48vxT6pupLPrJ7c5LJOTZlCfBvU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 17:07:11 -0000
Hi Peter, At 04:16 AM 07-02-2019, Petr pacek wrote: >here is a quiz for experienced RFC archeologists: > >https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035#section-5.2 >section 5.2. Use of master files to define zones >does not mention NS at apex at all, but it does explicitly mention SOA >at apex. Can it be interpreted as if NS at apex is not mandatory? > >Funnily enough >https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035#section-5.3 >has an example which as NS at apex, but it is not clear from the text above. > >Is it mandatory or not? Should I submit erratum for RFC 1035? RFC 1035 assumes that the reader is familiar with RFC 1034. Section 5.2 of RFC 1035 discusses about validity checks to be performed on the master files used to define zones. I would read Section 4.2 of RFC 1034 to understand the technical considerations, e.g. is a NS needed or not. The examples in RFC 1035 are "primarily pedagogical". I suggest taking into consideration that RFC 1035 is part of STD 13 for errata processing. Regards, S. Moonesamy
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Petr Špaček
- [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Petr Špaček
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Petr Špaček
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Kevin Darcy
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Petr Špaček
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Bob Harold
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Petr Špaček
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Marius Olafsson
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Peter van Dijk
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Masataka Ohta
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Masataka Ohta
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? Normen Kowalewski
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex? S Moonesamy