In article <[email protected]>, "Darcy Kevin (FCA)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Negative-caching TTL and regular TTL have little to do with each other; it's > not a reasonable assumption that one should stand in as a default for the > other. True, but that's water long under the bridge. Note that if a server is authoritative-only, caching is mostly irrelevant, so the negative cache TTL doesn't much apply. In this case, the SOA Minimum is just being used as the default TTL. > My opinion: named on the master should reject illegal zone files. As far as I can tell, nothing in RFC 2308 says that $TTL is required. I don't even see a SHOULD, let alone a MUST. Is there a later RFC that adds this requirement? If not, then a zone file without $TTL is legal. And for backward compatibility, it should continue to use the SOA Minimum field as the default TTL. -- Barry Margolin Arlington, MA _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
