IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Fri, 08 February 2019 00:54 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 26659127133 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:54:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
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 F5KCwmhsGran for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA6011274D0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583EA22C10; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 19:54:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 07 Feb 2019 19:54:22 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=euyy5dI612v0UCBaLTR5ft1XzHB49ewDOEr7e3gon dc=; b=TLSIDcwV9ObRXV7VprF6LxMzAAUHZvqtTKIRl2x5N2a3adHbu+KGUdd3q NmUjygndjV11jJ8rUbc4t5V7xa90zy9EizdKaOUfagr2LLRjRXvJsba+KxomLfAK B17Yfh+9a9HSrVhmLzG91ZJNDZoPc9HKri2d3YfAt/9VGZmHfboX3KwZvhbIa7T7 R/Ya4n8pzGIegTPywE3vIOeFEBzSY7ES5T6Eutk9sRtnahKsaeFTJETY0k15GB4N aXp09HusJDeJSZX9oRG3SZkBIcM7ee8K7NyKug9JpDsMu1eFduBdMSuczuQLO2G2 Q0HrTNZzWpBwY7BgANFVzdqtYpuyw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:PdNcXAg7rLE0u3YYZoRrv4g99Bnqw5PT0XPUzYeB8DDdSLd67WHeHA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrledugddviecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfhuthenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedt tdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurheptggguffhofgjff fgkfhfvfesrgejmherhhdtjeenucfhrhhomhepvfhonhihucfhihhntghhuceoughothes ughothgrthdrrghtqeenucffohhmrghinhepughothgrthdrrghtnecukfhppeduleehrd dugeejrdefgedrvddutdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepughothesughothgr thdrrghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:PdNcXFdR8f3xQEYKihLgDnZO4054tBcIAGbetsMC4cXYKvkKxfHXLA> <xmx:PdNcXP1TrhX4fYyqSMJ0qn2cHC73nyAAGqgxaKdJt0odMZzg4kw4rw> <xmx:PdNcXCJrMPrdcPIIWAgkfSZ3h_c6T9FrKVMsDJIeguMZv92uyymN0A> <xmx:PtNcXKzYneGpLGrOwccqwcPUD-3aaEtzi7xOgs58SHjBTDmun-BH_Q>
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (unknown [195.147.34.210]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3BBE11030F; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 19:54:21 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-0BC90843-C8B7-4BB4-9A8A-3228D0A0AD14"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16C101)
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iLOmCY1QFY8c6phU1cpMgQx02EqYuGHZ94mPEhNvX+kEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 00:54:19 +0000
Cc: Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Kevin Darcy <kevin.darcy@fcagroup.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <10CCD09E-C254-470E-BA41-A0FDCBDC4902@dotat.at>
References: <fcd790a2-414b-491e-01e2-9aa92f7b1c4e@nic.cz> <CAAeHe+xySnrvpD4-nhi3T0qiEmz8h0ZNUE_2kie7ctq8YPGRPA@mail.gmail.com> <56839e19-afe9-df4b-d432-09a949cc658c@nic.cz> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902071648340.18720@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAHw9_iLOmCY1QFY8c6phU1cpMgQx02EqYuGHZ94mPEhNvX+kEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Ikl96wnhKJd4Tvoakmx3PWeLN9g>
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 00:54:26 -0000

> On 7 Feb 2019, at 23:36, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
> 
> I agree that it should be checked, but I really want to be able to point at something in 1034 / 1035 which says this. 
> Tony's below is close, but not quite there yet - it says they should be the same, but not that it is an error in the zone file (the section is "5.2. Use of master files to define zones") if they are not. So, can y'all help me find evidence *from this timeframe* that shows that this was viewed as true at that time?
> 

RFC 1033:

> NS records for a domain exist in both the zone that delegates the domain, and in the domain itself. 


This says they can’t be missing from the domain itself.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email