Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex?

"Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> Thu, 07 February 2019 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.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 287E4128CF3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 08:12:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 MsnqsvVgZ28f for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 08:12:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 737A41289FA for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 08:12:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from open-xchange.com (unknown [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E70D6A288; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 17:12:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.242.2.79] (unknown [10.242.2.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3ADCB3C18CE; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 17:12:19 +0100 (CET)
From: "Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
To: "IETF DNSOP WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 17:12:18 +0100
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.4r5594)
Message-ID: <66182A61-58C6-4639-AB4E-25163C667906@powerdns.com>
In-Reply-To: <020C8BBA-8729-48E7-B893-1C2594D2186A@fugue.com>
References: <fcd790a2-414b-491e-01e2-9aa92f7b1c4e@nic.cz> <CAAeHe+xySnrvpD4-nhi3T0qiEmz8h0ZNUE_2kie7ctq8YPGRPA@mail.gmail.com> <56839e19-afe9-df4b-d432-09a949cc658c@nic.cz> <06E02AB3-5E3B-4E1F-9B23-BB0810F73B66@fugue.com> <CA+nkc8BLA1wVSQ6DEbM7py98Rq94P-=XJtEBzcJAD9LOucN2Ew@mail.gmail.com> <020C8BBA-8729-48E7-B893-1C2594D2186A@fugue.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/H-szmJB2P8v1sIRhosrDAb2kqmU>
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: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:12:23 -0000

On 7 Feb 2019, at 16:55, Ted Lemon wrote:

> On Feb 7, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu> wrote:
>> If we write it down, perhaps we should also mention that other things 
>> that answer DNS queries, like load balancers, should also return 
>> proper SOA and NS records, not just A and AAAA records,  for the same 
>> reasons.
>
> Are they currently returning no error/no data?

Yes, many do. Others do not respond at all (i.e., timeout).

Case in point: https://github.com/dns-violations/dnsflagday/issues/73

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/