I am still a bit uncomfortable with the -01 definition of glue, specifically the reference to RFC 2181. I think the reference to RFC 2181 is useful and necessary, but I hesitate to think that RFC 2181's use of glue is a redefinition that is intended to apply outside of the RFC itself. That is, I believe the term was overloaded (similar to the apparent overloading of "label" discussed in another recent dnsop thread).
Here is some proposed re-wording (modified from a previous proposal), which both adds more context (quoted from earlier RFC 1034 text) for the use of glue to the first paragraph and gives less weight to the RFC 2181 reference in the second. Glue records -- "[Records] which are not part of the authoritative data [for a zone], and are address resource records for the servers [in a subzone]. These RRs are only necessary if the name server's name is 'below' the cut, and are only used as part of a referral response." Without glue "we could be faced with the situation where the NS RRs tell us that in order to learn a name server's address, we should contact the server using the address we wish to learn." (Definition from RFC 1034, section 4.2.1) A later definition is that glue "includes any record in a zone file that is not properly part of that zone, including nameserver records of delegated sub-zones (NS records), address records that accompany those NS records (A, AAAA, etc), and any other stray data that might appear" ([RFC2181], section 5.4.1). Although glue is sometimes used today with this wider definition in mind, the context surrounding the RFC 2181 definition suggests it is intended to apply to the use of glue within document itself and not necessarily beyond.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
