In article <mailman.2601.1440783131.26362.bind-us...@lists.isc.org>, "Darcy Kevin (FCA)" <kevin.da...@fcagroup.com> wrote:
> What's in a name? :-) > > RFC 2308 said that the use of the last field of the SOA to set > negative-caching TTL is "the new defined meaning of the SOA minimum field". > So you can *call* it "minimum", but it is *actually* supposed to function as > something else... > > Eventually I hope BIND will conform to the spirit of RFC 2308 and stop using > the last field of the SOA to set the default TTL, as a "fallback" in > scenarios where the file would otherwise be illegal (i.e. the first RR has no > explicit TTL set, and there is no $TTL directive preceding it). RFC 2308 is > so old, that if it were a person, it would be legal to buy cigarettes in some > parts of the world. It's long past time for folks to get with the program. Does the RFC specify some other default TTL if there's no $TTL directive? If not, the software needs to do something, and using the old method for compatibility is as good anything else (on the assumption that anyone who didn't put $TTL in the file was depending on this use of the SOA record). -- Barry Margolin Arlington, MA _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
