(updated subject to reflect draft being discussed) Paul Vixie (vixie) writes: > i think that if LOCALHOST. could be made to return A 127.0.0.1 and AAAA ::1 > then we could use LOCALHOST. as a meaningless value for SOA.MNAME,
I actually considered that option for a moment. > but that > would just be there to handle the case where RFC 2136 initiators were talking > to an SOA.MNAME that did not match any NS.NSDNAME, in which case they are > already out of spec and it's difficult to say how much effort should be spent > changing the spec further. Is it then out of spec if we're working with a hidden/unreachable master server, and even though it is disclosed in SOA.MNAME, it is not listed in NS.NSDNAME ? What should one put in the SOA.MNAME in that case ? Any one of the slaves ? Phil _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
