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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 07 February 2019 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 C7FAC126D00 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 07:55:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 r06v870r4Fhk for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 07:55:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x831.google.com (mail-qt1-x831.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::831]) (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 095BB12008F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 07:55:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x831.google.com with SMTP id y4so338253qtc.10 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 07:55:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=4vPAK7p4Bmtgx9Ngu5LGT8c/qT4SHRuKVfYfWZoEFlU=; b=OzP34CJZ2Dx8pPVGIrpkdLD/RgYxQL0VJouuig7eW/NQCamhWhKfyg8XqsWK1dkiqj K8qfh9Yyr0kPcPjcie+ni7NyDKBtY2rWqyOJpzcOEPOlaLGs5P9+MUnhf+hcQATxgaOI nfW7vAKo9W8lVXI58UL+D7SI77/Fr9nMhi18Ith2fT3xGyas9tkAd7l0L2N4PWNrmJCM oyWpblGove3bRUXH6HaXOv+pzBukcwMVpVdO0MUQyQereiBTdsOdg40Ta8Hk8bh1MNVn p8ztNQAc+LJdbtTsL/M49RTLeNVROvVAb5Y+8DIjbb8YaKEH8vTiihwGN7GbUYIQVKzP xYvg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=4vPAK7p4Bmtgx9Ngu5LGT8c/qT4SHRuKVfYfWZoEFlU=; b=eIdKLfoIj4QIpYEA10AjdEgWWuksABK27WV0FLBoFtCz6BKeB85IH32yd1KnBgjd/w qZXKcU6X03r6GGColQ7PQtqq69Kou0ha3OoOJsOkJ+SgBD9hoiU6nph63M1WsWscdSwf u7dCizSOLsDgg1IxhfLotYwFnfNjoKAxaUY+in1Z6bWp2ahwTUmGXwS9GzXH7u6RdMZi 3P7dR+kEAI2toYfL+fMuJJhcv4W5jcqzLhwIx0antGwOh92FhSJygpo6EYRFHB9JXBgF 8pdhWWflmt0H2CphSkQM6zJi7ky8ejL+LFpdZUXSxLnJMdsIKNmO8EZEyoepS/5RAr7P iIdg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAua8rMeRU4V9NpN2DFy5RqPHNsFeHtN7q8VeA5FBXpw4UVqNxUtS grJvQgBhT0l9s2oi+GMIUrBVEg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZDQNUVmxvD/EekQq0Mdt55qObc9RN/y1AAHbJDpWcc3b0E/kc+rGZ2T9rAHD2k8sTyTwT/ZQ==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:27ec:: with SMTP id x41mr12642913qtx.49.1549554913928; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 07:55:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.34] (c-73-186-137-119.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.186.137.119]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d51sm6318118qtd.35.2019.02.07.07.55.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Feb 2019 07:55:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <020C8BBA-8729-48E7-B893-1C2594D2186A@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B454ADD6-78D1-4CA5-844D-E1DFF2E57D6B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 10:55:11 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CA+nkc8BLA1wVSQ6DEbM7py98Rq94P-=XJtEBzcJAD9LOucN2Ew@mail.gmail.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>
To: Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>
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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/OtwG6Tecoi2FFq4KDCHXq30BELE>
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 15:55:17 -0000

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?