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

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 07 February 2019 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404121271FF for <>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 07:35:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xdvm1LAbm2Kg for <>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 07:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BF2E126D00 for <>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 07:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 2so304189qtb.5 for <>; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 07:35:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=5By6t+H4JmCUkePNpuNVduq4M6CHyRKnwv5fIYxC3/I=; b=rz2xWcw6SVPw5HaTy2MNcbYvFr/V/zmXpsopHRLuaH1jwQCIozMbAJXVbtMxGNFrMt /+UhRmbDz9Bs86sp0qbHze8yI73Kko6I7/RDEW4nj4ZBGhGTtizIcAj25BhPQM7uxzy3 IC2Bp9dmsWF9t1qHqkSyMGS95/BLbBIiWLpgU+qo2gK/Gij23uRNbts+WY10OPuiEgIs WZt6LQv7z7o6bT8vMemQKYTI5JYBRgVDiKXCBBkYEWbQ7fz85duQIgG3JFwsm+2n06wd CAoC4WimFb21iP2WPJRsWkGnyM2ngaiRd0q+GeSVNHHisOupKxAPnXq4njHKVnVi6+k6 pHtA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=5By6t+H4JmCUkePNpuNVduq4M6CHyRKnwv5fIYxC3/I=; b=isws4PkIeJuT0oabD/x1cYSKITzMS7ek+weYoxZqKIclEB80GyDP8Jd4u1njppvTU+ hhvP94vvoqOrEnVO5Q+lko8G+aNMvaoHjNw9e1DEm9qRL24Ukrrc/7hkyCLWalTCP1PR weRP7c5Fn2rzXsMzhdLs7OVo/7Hd9Nf6nKxkqS7TDrW8HSnUa8JDkZZRnHLipsUkU+vO +kf5UfIcAF64/kPjFlPTXSPknay2DxmsDBflvfbrKZeZ57KOUhsyr4/ZV5GcwOkCnYKm Gbnm2yBKm0knGhMov9dKLWe5BF+HYxw8Wl3Fg9N7uIEGbYsexFEFXj9dhMISdl5aVflP ldKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaYmn7R9HlWvDxiJ7OZeJNzP7kS6Vdw1ZR2EVvzoMN+h4hGrrqX Hn1/0xmeYTduKr8EFIoZIImH1Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IacHvTLvLenJ3q2MGg4YCRM9tv2xaPU0ONWNyIeO2ghXT8f6+HBTRuTZLIDF/yD/yzRIuEKKw==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:e189:: with SMTP id p9mr12295727qvl.68.1549553735201; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 07:35:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id h14sm7946002qkk.61.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Feb 2019 07:35:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
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: <>
Cc: Tony Finch <>, Kevin Darcy <>,
To: Petr Špaček <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 15:35:38 -0000

On Feb 7, 2019, at 10:06 AM, Petr Špaček <> 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).