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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 07 February 2019 14:40 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 DA39C1228B7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:40:29 -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 xe7yNek1mAUY for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:40:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72d.google.com (mail-qk1-x72d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72d]) (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 131011200ED for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:40:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72d.google.com with SMTP id y16so34843qki.7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 06:40:27 -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=DeaxW0pVxU48LR93zx3TJRwe5+8F9y53S9AEwzDsTaU=; b=SFK5COHryZwFp25Mlg//xdDljgCXeEqIgF1bSzbUuA/ZrPOqLCxF1idVJCUXZ8/ord r8+dU2fuAigDvKm1tUhtppSy+U5moGC1tSIvHRHKR/L/Kz2hkZj+L1Imb6OMCv2VsoZu nBIQ/EidOnxSPPQ8RzvbD/AEx5eOpXINvwFuyDt9WqF+2Nehjr8ld7a4yTX6HVrBdQAD e89Uko5fSXx5L2QI3TDJ6o8tWVV98Ksbrjh4UlATQDjLqhgQOZ8Qvxpgbj+V5GJEgXgR hiTMp4g58ERb4M84Jf1fJ0j/ZVwQL/9pC+W2K6uSqyowBtJRLVkSX5lPYGegRjTwSY9z zxfQ==
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=DeaxW0pVxU48LR93zx3TJRwe5+8F9y53S9AEwzDsTaU=; b=AugueyBFBCeJKfZgzUL4+kb8U34HdYALjT/Pa2xnXVOzVYvRRXwhtvPFiOLHgseUob Nz+NvnvTiy8A0DD0+TgWtD8/W3shLv3oL0AyAyXmVLC/87r6JJmMgxKOT6rTGj0CAg8i Hk5dOOrc6Q6M6/wNUp3/tMt7rxr8kHanSaR6KmbmGNkj7QyC8qUhbz2pEg0G3dwQKUvx jagODW1GxPD3DDg96U+TPm+onBo2KhZS5hOHAoZpZ4kT81dyVjjDIiZHZ0u2ffRqxJRh kRezCsCMkKGs3PzEK/f144HLy49zw9e41jliv7EA0t6woKx4TadecNuLAw/jqo0st2ll K8Mw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubq1GFQgnavQW7k6OrEbjm+V4P/LKrs4IzUJQpECt9/DhbwfaYx 7/XfhhA7Of4Z19mCAWvsxBAfHQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IY5d9cAYGWdbIVn5Jled/8gj0/dpg8xG0QVTebPEiARBBeoC+xdW7gVsHeCKpCKKI2wkfy6qg==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:5686:: with SMTP id k128mr11074497qkb.29.1549550427054; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 06:40:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.34] (c-73-186-137-119.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [73.186.137.119]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n68sm19761530qte.66.2019.02.07.06.40.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Feb 2019 06:40:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <0F4355DC-CC6C-430B-AE8E-6FB5A44FD9C8@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E5E1B465-2501-4B6C-82B2-2DCAA8BA94CD"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 09:40:24 -0500
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902071407530.18720@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: =?utf-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
References: <fcd790a2-414b-491e-01e2-9aa92f7b1c4e@nic.cz> <CC75C79C-E5FB-4C91-9453-103E36EDC505@fugue.com> <48a12f46-eee1-823e-a448-8f3b0d973f7d@nic.cz> <F821C2A2-BD6F-41D1-A2D6-3928E783614B@fugue.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902071407530.18720@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/mCcArAXPe4hETOKjMs-WX3nlpOQ>
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 14:40:30 -0000

On Feb 7, 2019, at 9:16 AM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
> But in this scenario things soon go wrong, because RFC 2181 says the
> NODATA reply replaces the delegation records in the resolver's cache. This
> means that if a client explicitly asks for the NS records of a zone that
> lacks them, resolution for other records in the zone will subsequently
> fail.

Ah, there you have it.   So then it _is_ required.   Kevin’s point also points in that direction.

Is there somewhere in a later spec where this is stated explicitly, then?