Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] New Version Notification for draft-pp-additional-contents-00.txt

Ben Schwartz <> Wed, 16 June 2021 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4289B3A21B5 for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] 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 ds-7XQ9uOuQ4 for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEDA43A21B3 for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n7so3728773wri.3 for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rDTjQF0e/x/PthvskI5XwkcsdhQk18P74XKKzjnuiB0=; b=Thx6n0x4TnGsr6m2aGFOpd0tdYrC4lyHiH26JxCrT+Q9skJGtsws5/6MPRkcZDqdW7 EkMF5tI9ARtFoSfYIAewWuaBLvbsD1jCLnNot5IhC7GMZ7KAdTi4dZ1/XamBDzbbzJ5O lwgLeuUSFzIs3lIPKxLWiqNu5tBjIyGzrF5Ptzwk3BW7V4YIEKFPCtbwg5MusUJ8cbIc r2qzhmbZ82UmgRLnAj8KHqL2pvXWhHULa0YZi5P2EHNtJA47BqYbApURRRRdDrGaRRNA VPbT1zV67UUTIB1nVNFSESVJ6lMh2e6F3ULyOy7O0YsHX9kctawcfcDbNSZ4qIzNQMdB 8ICA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rDTjQF0e/x/PthvskI5XwkcsdhQk18P74XKKzjnuiB0=; b=Tz70iUIVk4frHrfK/peTn1klE+fyXlpP0ZcLR3NUFbDlq/VQ0EjjkTE+etG99P7Ghs jPG6m2tLNX0ZqhiRiUPEGIDItmEEtDrb8MDqJqaBWhImHUfYTFmhsPki38zprboaxPnZ 9JmXxv3EIrxMpkMg/b5xDDd3Keihc9lfYfRESG01tOXrT3t1KC9z3c+QO4jxiSZA7BXj gTloYwFbJKhfqfVUfWmi8kRu5AgdRuzQzYq7HBEGD0UQFk35fUInSb4Qgba0GdEetzep AdxE5TaiBGZeAG2sM6sL60WcmO1sHWiDbQHeqFPYE0UiVCrD1xJ0iOl4QtMvaCkKI2NA TUHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533JqTywGvcuAPydUeJXui6JDJLkZkSSNoVvrfca4d//Qo/cOWdu 76N3nrTwu3oXF35sCM9IpeCxDN4mvzr8JGRx6UWbKA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy9DE5yqTcN2CYD2vF3BqWMCg5A+/Z1EEAvQvXf4zc0aKIlLST0otY0K9nf67a6DNsMgbDLWqIY/nOXdgRvejc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1842:: with SMTP id c2mr414643wri.426.1623867487325; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ben Schwartz <>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:17:55 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="000000000000c505f405c4e61ce4"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] New Version Notification for draft-pp-additional-contents-00.txt
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: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:18:14 -0000

OK, but this is bewildering in a different way.

RFC 2181 is a Standards Track RFC that Updates RFC 1034, and whose title is
"Clarifications to the DNS Specification".  In the event of conflict, it
supersedes RFC 1034.  As a matter of process, the RFC 1034 definition would
therefore seem to be irrelevant for determining the "correct" meaning.

If I were arguing that the RFC 2181 definition is not "correct", I would be
looking for an RFC that Updates RFC 2181 and has a different definition of
glue.  The DNSSEC RFCs do Update RFC 2181, and appear to use a conflicting
definition of glue, although it's not explicitly defined.  Is that the
argument you are making?

Given the quotes you provided, I would be more likely to conclude that the
existing standards-track RFCs use conflicting definitions of "glue", and a
new standards-track document or erratum would be needed in order to resolve
the discrepancy.

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 1:52 PM Paul Hoffman <> wrote:

> On Jun 16, 2021, at 10:39 AM, Ben Schwartz <> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks.  I'm a bit confused though.  Your draft says "Non-address
> records that appear in the Additional section are not considered glue as
> that term is used in existing RFCs".  You also quote RFC 2181: '"Glue"
> above includes any record in a zone file that is not properly part of that
> zone, including nameserver records ...'.  Is RFC 2181 not an existing RFC?
> Of course it is an existing RFC: that's why we referenced it.
> Section 3 of the draft has three quotes about glue. The first two make it
> clear that RFC 1034 only considers glue to be addresses, while RFC 2181
> does not. The conclusion of the draft is that the original definition is
> the correct one.
> --Paul Hoffman