On May 5, 2015, at 7:45 AM, Tony Finch <[email protected]> wrote: > > Casey Deccio <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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. > > I like this wording.
Seems OK to me, and I like the fact that it keeps puts the quotations in context. Are there any objections? > Re "other stray data", can we conclude if it includes or excludes > occluded records (as in RFC 6672 section 5.2 and RFC 2136 paragraph 7.18)? I propose that we don't try to over-analyze RFC 2181 here, given that we are using the RFC 1034 definition as the more important one. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
