On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 6:42 PM Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 8 Feb 2019, at 10:28 am, Masataka Ohta < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Petr Spacek wrote: > > > >> Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC1035 (5626) > > > > I don't think errata is necessary. > > Neither do I. > > >> 5. At least one NS RR must be present at the top of the zone. > > > > At least two. > > And address records for the name servers at top of zone MUST exist. > if the names are in zone. Similarly GLUE records must exist for > delegating NS records if they are below bottom of zone. There > are a whole heap of checks that can be performed when you load > a zone. > > That list was clearly not intended to be exhaustive. Constructing > and getting consensus over a exhaustive list is likely to take > months. >
Ok, fair. I'll do "Hold for Document Update": "Hold for Document Update - The erratum is not a necessary update to the RFC. However, any future update of the document might consider this erratum, and determine whether it is correct and merits including in the update. " If people read the errata they will see it listed. W > > Mark > > > Masataka Ohta > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DNSOP mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
