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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 07 February 2019 15:35 UTC

From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <06E02AB3-5E3B-4E1F-9B23-BB0810F73B66@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BFC4FDE6-2C52-459B-96B5-E62DA2FC35E1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 10:35:32 -0500
In-Reply-To: <56839e19-afe9-df4b-d432-09a949cc658c@nic.cz>
Cc: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, Kevin Darcy <kevin.darcy@fcagroup.com>, dnsop@ietf.org
To: Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
References: <fcd790a2-414b-491e-01e2-9aa92f7b1c4e@nic.cz> <CAAeHe+xySnrvpD4-nhi3T0qiEmz8h0ZNUE_2kie7ctq8YPGRPA@mail.gmail.com> <56839e19-afe9-df4b-d432-09a949cc658c@nic.cz>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/K8GR_7QUDxaZ6otnZGDgfq7GVmM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex?
Precedence: list

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).

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