> > 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. Yes indeed. What I am getting at is to differentiate classic UDP DNS from DSO in terms of operation model, not those extensions to RFC1035 context. > 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. Agreed. > > 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*. Understood. Your consideration is making sense here. Di -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
