On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 2:14 PM Shumon Huque <shu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
I agree. I favor your proposal. -andy _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
