On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 04:10:53PM -0400, Bob Harold wrote: > > > > Stealth server -- This is the same as a slave server except that it > > is not listed in an NS resource record for the zone. (Quoted from > > [RFC1996], section 2.1) A stealth server is often actually a master > > for zone transfers, and in that case is called a "hidden master". > > > > > > A Stealth server is often a primary master, which I believe is *not* "the > > same as a slave server", but rather a separate case. A Stealth server > can > > be master or slave. > > I know people use it that way, but the definition in RFC1996 is what > it is and we mostly try to cleave to that. I think what you're > talking about is exactly the "hidden master" in the text already, no? > "same as slave" and "often actually a master" seems like a contradiction to me. But if we are quoting, then I guess we cannot fix it. > > > in a response. For example, the server for the parent zone > > example.com might reply with glue records for ns.child.example.com. > > Because the child.example.com zone is a descendant of the example.com > > zone, both glue records are in-bailiwick. > > > > > > In the last sentence "both" seems out of place, I think "the" would be > > better. > > Good catch, thanks. > > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > a...@anvilwalrusden.com > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
