On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 3:35 AM Shumon Huque <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (2) Section 3.1 Paragraph 2: >> >> The Next Domain Name field SHOULD be set to the immediate lexicographic >> successor of the QNAME. The Type Bit Maps field MUST only have the bits >> set >> for the following RR Types: RRSIG, NSEC, and NXNAME. (The immediate >> lexicographic successor is the typical case of the "DNS Name Successor" >> defined in [RFC4471]). >> >> The reference to RFC4471 is informative, but this makes it look like it >> should >> be normative. But that would make it a downward reference, since this is >> seeking Proposed Standard status. How does the WG want to handle this? >> > > One possible way to deal with this is to delete the reference to 4471. In > my > view, the text in the doc was already self explanatory without it. > > I'll defer to others more familiar with IETF/RFC process for other possible > recommendations. > If someone implementing this would need to understand what "DNS Name Successor" or "immediate lexicographic successor" mean in order to complete that implementation, the reference must be there and must be normative. As this is currently worded, I think that's the right interpretation. If you don't really need to know any of that in order to implement this specification, then (a) you can make it informative, but (b) the SHOULD will have to go or be softened to MAY or equivalent so that you don't actually need to know any of that to complete the implementation. A final process point: This document is seeking Proposed Standard status. Process requires that if you're going to include a normative reference to RFC 4471, which is Experimental, then (a) your AD has to approve the reference, and (b) the Last Call is supposed to call out the downward reference, but it didn't. -MSK
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
