On 4 Dec 2017, at 4:08, Tony Finch wrote:
Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote:
On 27 Nov 2017, at 5:22, Tony Finch wrote:
A primary master is wrt a zone not a server - a zone's primary
master is
a server that's authoritative for a zone and which does not get the
zone
contents via axfr/ixfr, but instead from a master file and/or UPDATE
(or
a non-standard mechanism such as directly from a database).
That sounds correct. It also sounds quite different than what is
defined
in RFC 1996 and RFC 2136. How is this for new wording?
Primary Master master server at the root of the zone transfer
dependency graph.
That's exactly the same meaning as what I wrote above.
That one bit is, yes. However the rest of the quote from 2136 differs.
The idea of a primary master is only used in <xref target="RFC1996"/>
and
<xref target="RFC2136"/>, and is considered archaic in other
parts of the DNS.
Can you please provide citations to show that it's considered archaic?
Sure: earlier messages in this thread. Some people said that primary
master does not need to be given in the SOA MNAME field. Some people
said that there could be multiple primary masters.
A modern interpretation of the term "primary master" is a server that
is
both authoritative for a zone and that gets its updates to the zone
from
configuration (such as a master file) or from UPDATE transactions.
How is that different to what I wrote?
Just editorial changes.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
