+1 to what Jasdip proposes. I was made aware of a different issue though.
DENIC happens to allow not only delegation but also provisioning of direct RRs in the TLD parent zone. MX, A, AAAA or TXT can appear. This would be no issue though.
What is also allowed is to specify owner name for those RRs, so that A record for www.example.de would be also possible. This seems not to be covered by the current draft.
I am not insisting this one case shall be the reason to change the draft, but rather asking if there is a more general case in this direction or a need in the draft to be clear that only the delegation case is covered. Also likely the draft shall be clear about whether TTL values apply to apex RRs of a given type.
Few remarks to the text:Section 3.1 "For domain objects, the list of expected DNS record types is NS, DS, A and AAAA." and "For nameserver objects, the list of expected DNS record types is just A and AAAA.".
I know this text is aimed to give a hint to the implementers but it reads as a hard promise which will have decay with time when new delegation types emerge.
Just adding "at the time of writing" would help. I would prefer however a more clear statement like "At the time of writing this list consists of NS, DS, A and AAAA types for domain objects and A and AAAA types for nameserver objects. The clients MUST however accept responses containing other DNS record types.
Also in Section 3.1:"TTL values MUST be unsigned integers in the range 0-2,147,483,647" I suggest to add " represented as JSON Number", to avoid packing number in string.
Kind Regards, Pawel On 09.01.26 17:57, Jasdip Singh wrote:
Hi Gavin, *From: *Andy Newton <[email protected]> *Date: *Thursday, January 8, 2026 at 9:22 AM*To: *Jorge Cano <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> *Subject: *[regext] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension-03 (Ends 2026-01-19)On the 3rd paragraph in Section 1:> This document is complementary to the Extensible Provisioning Protocol [RFC5730] (EPP) > Mapping for DNS Time-to-Live (TTL) Values [RFC9803], but registry operators do not > need to implement that extension in their EPP server in order to implement this RDAP extension.It may be worth noting that the data model intentionally does not support a per record TTL.[JS] Andy and I were discussing this. Since RFC 2181 deprecated differing TTLs in an RRSet, it might help to clarify this data model decision by referring to section 5.2 of that RFC [1].[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2181#autoid-9 Jasdip _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
