Moin!
> On 02 Apr 2015, at 22:35, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> On Apr 2, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Rose, Scott W. wrote:
>> FWIW, when we were writing NIST SP 800-81 (the DNSSEC guide), we were told
>> in the comments (can't remember the commenter) that primary/secondary should
>> be used to denote roles, a
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 02:23:52PM -0400, Casey Deccio wrote:
> I've re-read the definitions of zone apex and delegation point in RFC 4033
> (in conjunction with review of draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-02) and it
> seems to me that they are not consistent with RFC 1034 notions.
When I was working
On 4/3/15, 15:21, "Casey Deccio" wrote:
> However, independent of the location of the zone cut, the text is still
> confusing (to me), as it implies that there are multiple nodes and names.
Well, that case:
>
> Here is an alternative wording, which adds the context of RRsets:
>
> Deleg
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> IMHO, the original text in 4033 is correct as it is for the first proposed
> errata. The notion that zone cuts are between nodes was blown away by the
> DS record, and when I've ever white-boarded a DNS hierarchy, the cut goes
> through the n
Edward Lewis wrote:
> IMHO, the original text in 4033 is correct as it is for the first
proposed errata. The notion that zone cuts are between nodes was blown
away by the DS record, and when I've ever white-boarded a DNS hierarchy,
the cut goes through the node.
+1.
--
Paul Vixie
__
IMHO, the original text in 4033 is correct as it is for the first proposed
errata. The notion that zone cuts are between nodes was blown away by the
DS record, and when I've ever white-boarded a DNS hierarchy, the cut goes
through the node.
The parent is authoritative for the existence of the nod
I've re-read the definitions of zone apex and delegation point in RFC 4033
(in conjunction with review of draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-02) and it
seems to me that they are not consistent with RFC 1034 notions.
Additionally, there appears to be some misusage of the terms in the
document itself. An
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
> > On 2 apr 2015, at 21:51, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >
> > Given this thread, I propose the following for the draft:
>
> Well, I would change things around so that it is more clear primary and
> secondary are the terms to use today, like:
>
On 4/2/15, 22:38, "Paul Vixie" wrote:
>Tony Finch wrote:
>> Re. "primary", it is worth noting the definition of the SOA MNAME
>> field in RFC 1035:
>>
>> MNAME The of the name server that was the
>> original or primary source of data for this zone.
I'm aware of this,
Paul,
On 04/02/2015 04:13 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Apr 2, 2015, at 12:32 AM, Matthijs Mekking
wrote:
Actually I think $DEFAULT_TTL should be in Zones too as it only
exists in zone files.
Sorry I meant $TTL here from RFC 2308. My point is that it is something
that can be set in zone files,
10 matches
Mail list logo
