On 19 Nov 2008, at 14:28, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
Just a small nit I happened to notice in this draft.
In section 3, there's an example SOA record where the dot representing
the MNAME is printed behind the RNAME.
Shouldn't the MNAME be before the RNAME ?
So:
@ 1800IN SOA j
Just a small nit I happened to notice in this draft.
In section 3, there's an example SOA record where the dot representing
the MNAME is printed behind the RNAME.
Shouldn't the MNAME be before the RNAME ?
So:
@ 1800IN SOA jabley.automagic.org. . (
Should be:
@ 1800I
> 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 ?
Since an RFC 2136 initiator is only supposed to send
(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 ::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
