On Feb 28, 2013, at 7:03 AM, Edward Lewis ed.le...@neustar.biz wrote:
On Feb 27, 2013, at 21:50, Roy Arends wrote:
When a parent and child zone are served from the same server set, like co.uk
and uk, you could have _in_theory_ DS records without NS records in the
parent zone. A resolver
Hi,
We've been discussing internally whether or not including DS records into a
zone without respective NS record(s) makes any sense (assuming that there are
no other RRSETs for the respective label in the zone itself - pure delegation
scenario)... My personal assumption is that it does not,
On Feb 27, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Alexander Mayrhofer alexander.mayrho...@nic.at
wrote:
Hi,
We've been discussing internally whether or not including DS records into a
zone without respective NS record(s) makes any sense (assuming that there are
no other RRSETs for the respective label in the
On 27 feb 2013, at 14:18, Alexander Mayrhofer alexander.mayrho...@nic.at
wrote:
We've been discussing internally whether or not including DS records into a
zone without respective NS record(s) makes any sense (assuming that there are
no other RRSETs for the respective label in the zone
I don't know if there's a smoking gun MUST NOT but we did discuss a NS-less
DS. Unreliably I'd say it would be a protocol-level error to have.
But I did find this, which in as much as an RFC is ever a spec, infers that
NS-less DS's aren't to be seen. From RFC 4035:
3.1.4.1. Responding to
Ok, let me phrase my statement differently then.
IF people do not want DS in the parent zone of a zone cut, then the registry
should not publish the DS they have for domain names they do not have NS.
My only point was to not use this as an argument to make the epp transactions
even more
