Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-key-tag

Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws> Fri, 07 October 2016 21:20 UTC

Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 17:19:54 -0400
From: Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20161007211954.waoz2zluqr32m3bd@mycre.ws>
References: <6d565942-cb71-626b-5e6c-248987ee1581@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdkhUN7bGf69zJsWd5KXRCtnVHsvNgBFgQ1KSJNqVYwLw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqdkhUN7bGf69zJsWd5KXRCtnVHsvNgBFgQ1KSJNqVYwLw@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ThF4w7j6axMFdt1iY0NL4Wu9Z4U>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-key-tag
Precedence: list

神明達哉 wrote:
> 2. regarding the following note in Section 5.3:
> 
>    [ Note RFC1035 says NULL
>    RRs are not allowed in master files, but I believe that to be
>    incorrect ]
> 
>   perhaps we should officially update RFC1035 and clarify that NULL is
>   now allowed in master files?  Even if the usage in the authoritative
>   side (such as the example shown in Section 5.3.1) is not a normative
>   part of this draft, the use of NULL RR is, and so it would be better
>   to assure such configuration won't be considered a non-compliant
>   setting.

§5.3.1 uses the RFC 3597 generic text representation, and 3597 says "An
implementation MAY also choose to represent some RRs of known type using
the above generic representations for the type". So maybe all that is
needed is a reference to 3597.

(Are there any other reasons for 1035 to not allow NULL RRs in zone
files besides the lack of a defined presentation format?)

-- 
Robert Edmonds

[DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-… Tim Wicinski
Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dn… 神明達哉
Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dn… Robert Edmonds