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

Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu> Thu, 07 February 2019 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <rharolde@umich.edu>
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 717B71279E6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 07:48:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umich.edu
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 VNK72Lgi2u1O for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 07:48:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56DF9126D00 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 07:48:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id z25-v6so259147ljk.7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 07:48:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umich.edu; s=google-2016-06-03; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=95fHgSpJE2a/3pwyKvGNb1L0YoT7mXAkeuotnBAIh8s=; b=YhEEJdLyxasmK8ApodQrdtTl6JCvmOf61rssxIKA7ZR48p8BClgbbhtUMsqUzD65me IlHuppSRQABoDweLgaYgfMaPXpmMisReQ8iKECjx6yqDvFjV81HsL/CBSOugDDJzTHCu tpsCV8gvZ6ooZeyCIIlTg/j1ldetdCZYYshlFEE9q7BM1zmryy7I14Lxc46ytLInMN2J /l63b2nKyncSHLZX3ie+IEscHCoQ4n00O2oootFnr12UzaBsHPuJBVcVYGBNH/N2NcQn 77PRqtJn/esIC0JP+e16mGpDKvVx1vcA+4HGnc3DfJwfniZXk1GAwkdXCIrEkBYvFcLK +yww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=95fHgSpJE2a/3pwyKvGNb1L0YoT7mXAkeuotnBAIh8s=; b=ixo66gF7zjoCbjBBaswScX+BiRVHmfnLHKhf8L2U/L7NEYr6lKRQlENjyPhS3jlEsn CIYEerwW1rsuo0Vl6hFYAv2g5S1SuDJoWYxoVI0G12G4WPP8aYBHIvlMI9nd+BSf/Dzu lGsS7D+wwZd91tW+3Pn76grLe67Mtiz4hnGbbO5kk7lLGAjxESmDlI/bq470IUs3UeLW VclxMAMOVqRswNupebGz+9VvBnK7ja6aZrmFTV2uwjApxsE1ZsF1wiItFvKNmcOAPLx2 F+d8fDVSfsE3vLgTQg+JjE0rwAA4hzsXOPcIQALcJ0z9O7BIU6GoAs8yHNG2D75d/Ry3 5J9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAub4py3RSocLPWBDYhq/KLzrlqiJMukwJeJh4TW+AZ7PO/kVgVVf td9lqihu+J21qDuIHLpi8q0YZzv0aSaRyN67YdokeU9V
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbarXtu3QmNOCIxQMlUl4AQof41vkVG6+bd8d2N8Mhr9+0fEbdWYK1bEjuauddg/VDb5WeG5g2l1k44jKwYCCI=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:84ca:: with SMTP id q10-v6mr10403618ljh.65.1549554510442; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 07:48:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <06E02AB3-5E3B-4E1F-9B23-BB0810F73B66@fugue.com>
From: Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 10:48:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+nkc8BLA1wVSQ6DEbM7py98Rq94P-=XJtEBzcJAD9LOucN2Ew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Kevin Darcy <kevin.darcy@fcagroup.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000027bbac05814fc63c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/HQrn96LWGgTYdGWXT5HE8iLx8w0>
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 15:48:34 -0000

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 10:35 AM Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> On Feb 7, 2019, at 10:06 AM, Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> wrote:
>
> We (as developers in our office) all have had gut feeling that NS is
> mandatory but we could not find it in the RFCs.
>
>
> I hate to say it, but we should really make sure that this is actually
> stated somewhere where it can reasonably be found.   If it is not, we
> should state it.   Petr was completely sensible to think it was the case
> but not be sure.   Saying that it is the case, and why it is the case,
> would be helpful.   This is something that I hadn’t really thought through
> before Petr asked the question, but I’d been wondering about it too because
> the question comes up in the DNSSD Discovery Proxy code I’m working on (I
> assumed the answer was yes).
>

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.

-- 
Bob Harold