> On 1 Feb 2024, at 05:42, Di Ma via Datatracker via dnsdir <dnsdir@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think this document is ready with clarification on DNS transport and security > options in Section 3.1. <dnsdir co-chair hat on> Thanks Di! <dnsdir co-chair hat off> > Yet I still suggest adding RFC1035 as normative reference to the term 'DNS' in this document <drip wg participant hat on> Thanks for the suggestion. We have to agree to disagree here. A normative reference to RFC1035 is unhelpful IMO. There's lots of DNS stuff which isn’t in RFC1035 that (probably) will be used by DRIP: IPv6, EDNS0, TSIG, CERT RRs, DNSSEC, dynamic update, notify, ixfr, extended error reporting, etc, etc. I think it’s impractical and unnecessary to list them all. Or replace the RFC each time the next new DNS shiny to come along gets adopted in DRIP - DELEG records for example. My concern about including a normative reference to RFC1035 is vendors/developers who would take that literally. ie Have DNS code which only supports RFC1035 *and nothing else*. <drip wg participant hat off> -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
