On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 4:25 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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.
>
My proposal would be to avoid using terms like "DNS Name Successor"
introduced in an "experimental" RFC (4471), delete the reference, and just
use what is described in the already referenced RFC 4470 (Standards Track),
which states the following (Section 4):
"To increment a name, add a leading label with a single null
(zero-value) octet."
which is all that we need. The term "immediate lexicographic successor" was
introduced in this draft, and we can just equate it to the above in the
draft text.
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.
>
I'm fine if the AD wants to approve the down reference. But I think my
proposal above makes the issue moot.
Shumon.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
