Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Fri, 22 May 2020 00:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 061643A0D35 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2020 17:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 QA_UmvqEsxiK for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2020 17:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B6873A0D33 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2020 17:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 59414 invoked from network); 22 May 2020 00:14:38 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 22 May 2020 00:14:38 -0000
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CADyWQ+Ee0qXCVA+xarfaWc-BnDmBPHkvRx2dTOKOr_kU_1MNRA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <380a2b8e-0680-5caf-401f-b7b4f1bafb1f@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 09:31:34 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+Ee0qXCVA+xarfaWc-BnDmBPHkvRx2dTOKOr_kU_1MNRA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nPMr5OCdufml19QUy416M8Up5vM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional
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: Fri, 22 May 2020 00:31:21 -0000

Tim Wicinski wrote:

> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional
> 
> The draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional/
> 
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
> by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

While I'm not against the clarification, the draft should mention
that rfc1034 already states:

    To fix this problem, a zone contains "glue" RRs which are not
    part of the authoritative data, and are address RRs for the servers.
    These RRs are only necessary if the name server's name is "below" the
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    cut, and are only used as part of a referral response.
                 ^^^^^^^^^

which means the glue RRs are necessary for a referral response.
Though not very obvious, it logically means that they MUST be
included as part of a referral response, because it is the only
reason to make them necessary.

						Masataka Ohta