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

The "apex" terminology didn't come into vogue until later. Prior to that,
people talked about the "top" of a zone.

RFC 1034 Section 4.2.1 lays this out:

"In the data that makes up a zone, NS RRs are found at the top node of the
zone (and are authoritative)".

Admittedly "are found" doesn't sound to modern ears (or look to modern
eyes) like a mandatory requirement. That's another thing that's changed
over the years: RFC 2026 was yet to be published, which tightened up the
requirement levels and how to signal them textually. When looking at
pre-RFC-2026 RFC's, one has to exercise some judgement of whether verbiage
describing "typical" or "normal" situations is actually normative, perhaps
even mandatory..

                             - Kevin

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 7:16 AM Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> wrote:

> Hello dnsop,
>
> here is a quiz for experienced RFC archeologists:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035#section-5.2
> section 5.2. Use of master files to define zones
> does not mention NS at apex at all, but it does explicitly mention SOA
> at apex. Can it be interpreted as if NS at apex is not mandatory?
>
> Funnily enough
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035#section-5.3
> has an example which as NS at apex, but it is not clear from the text
> above.
>
> Is it mandatory or not? Should I submit erratum for RFC 1035?
>
> Thank you for clarification.
>
> --
> Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>