Bob Harold wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Robert Edmonds <edmo...@mycre.ws> wrote: > > > ... > > > > Leaving aside the minor stuff like whether to use upper case or lower > > case, etc., if there were a "canonical" way to write a zone file, I'd > > recommend placing all RRs constituting an RRset together, without > > interleaving RRs from different RRsets, so that one doesn't need to scan > > the entire zone file before extracting RRsets. I can't think of an > > example from an RFC where RRs aren't shown like this, so at least there > > are aesthetic reasons to place them like this. (It seems like a case of > > unnecessary flexibility in the original spec.) > > > > -- > > Robert Edmonds > > > > > I can see a case where in a hand-edited zone file that one might want to > group by the type of record - putting all the MX records together, possibly > in an $INCLUDE file controlled by the mail team, where the "A" records are > controlled by the server team. So the RR sets would not be together in the > file. > (Having moved to a database system, I don't remember exactly how the zone > files were arranged when we hand-edited them, but I remember we often > grouped records by type.)
RRsets are type-specific, though, so you can still place an MX RRset and address RRsets for the same owner name contiguously in separate sections of the zone file. (I'm not saying that all RRs should be placed contiguously by owner name.) -- Robert Edmonds _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
