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

Marius Olafsson <marius@hi.is> Thu, 07 February 2019 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <marius@ok.rhi.hi.is>
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 A1144126D00 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 08:05:19 -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=[none] 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 sub4wEQBVU7L for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 08:05:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ok.rhi.hi.is (ok.rhi.hi.is [IPv6:2a00:c88:4000:690::69:172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00F8D12008F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 08:05:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ok.rhi.hi.is (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ok.rhi.hi.is (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x17G5B20005840; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:05:11 GMT
Received: (from marius@localhost) by ok.rhi.hi.is (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x17G5Bkc005839; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:05:11 GMT
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:05:11 +0000
From: Marius Olafsson <marius@hi.is>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20190207160511.mua3wa244wr34rkt@hi.is>
References: <fcd790a2-414b-491e-01e2-9aa92f7b1c4e@nic.cz> <CAAeHe+xySnrvpD4-nhi3T0qiEmz8h0ZNUE_2kie7ctq8YPGRPA@mail.gmail.com> <56839e19-afe9-df4b-d432-09a949cc658c@nic.cz> <06E02AB3-5E3B-4E1F-9B23-BB0810F73B66@fugue.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <06E02AB3-5E3B-4E1F-9B23-BB0810F73B66@fugue.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/rKMFagpVue8qOO3tZ6mBmJh7ry0>
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 16:09:07 -0000

> I hate to say it, but we should really make sure that this is actually stated somewhere where it can reasonably be found.   If it is not, we should state it.   Petr was completely sensible to think it was the case but not be sure.   Saying that it is the case, and why it is the case, would be helpful.   This is something that I hadn???t really thought through before Petr asked the question, but I???d been wondering about it too because the question comes up in the DNSSD Discovery Proxy code I???m working on (I assumed the answer was yes).

How about RFC2181 section 6.1

"The authoritative servers for a zone are enumerated in the NS records
   for the origin of the zone, which, along with a Start of Authority
   (SOA) record are the mandatory records in every zone."

--
Marius Olafsson
University of Iceland