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

Hi Tony, Ted,

seem to not be  a DNSOP specific thing: Obviously the inherent understanding of what consensus is at the time of creation of the textual representation of that consensus may be still ambiguous at time of writing to some, however may also become ambiguous over time, in part because over time ALL originators of a text might no longer be reachable for questions, and also there may be no snippets of text that could be cited from WG mailing lists.

Feels to me like something is needed as a tool to augment this, something that can more formally represent what the consensus requirements and definitions indeed are. IMHO to grow the set of representations of DNS in form of a suite of RFC7950 YANG based models could help for many such clarification cases, completely independent from the general usefulness of gaining an interoperable representation of DNS related data. 

BR, 
Normen

> On 7. Feb 2019, at 15:40, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> On Feb 7, 2019, at 9:16 AM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at <mailto: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?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop