IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] New Version Notification for draft-pp-additional-contents-00.txt

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Wed, 16 June 2021 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
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 69A113A20EE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7VRU3qywGjWk for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (ppa3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E532A3A20EC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.6]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 15GHqMMt029583 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:52:23 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.858.12; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:52:21 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.0858.012; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:52:21 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
CC: DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pp-additional-contents-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHXYthbTkhJHNZAukqeelP9OB4kdQ==
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:52:21 +0000
Message-ID: <9CA01848-10D5-464C-9EBA-0B7CCBF09FB5@icann.org>
References: <162386410269.20738.7972356629825313273@ietfa.amsl.com> <F2AC2969-74BF-452B-8C7A-31D786ED4EE0@icann.org> <CAHbrMsBL4uLbiqJW20sm4tu9oFca8p=ecA7oCdE7EbQM=O-WBw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbrMsBL4uLbiqJW20sm4tu9oFca8p=ecA7oCdE7EbQM=O-WBw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_770514C2-3599-4F2E-A7E9-FB73443D1FFF"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-06-16_11:2021-06-15, 2021-06-16 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/B1IyeYHG_ifTq0q3-ILwu4PdcfY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] New Version Notification for draft-pp-additional-contents-00.txt
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: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:52:30 -0000

On Jun 16, 2021, at 10:39 AM, Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks.  I'm a bit confused though.  Your draft says "Non-address records that appear in the Additional section are not considered glue as that term is used in existing RFCs".  You also quote RFC 2181: '"Glue" above includes any record in a zone file that is not properly part of that zone, including nameserver records ...'.  Is RFC 2181 not an existing RFC?

Of course it is an existing RFC: that's why we referenced it.

Section 3 of the draft has three quotes about glue. The first two make it clear that RFC 1034 only considers glue to be addresses, while RFC 2181 does not. The conclusion of the draft is that the original definition is the correct one.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email