"Roy" == Roy Arends <roy@dnss.ec> writes:
Roy> The term "GLUE RECORDS" is defined in rfc-1033 (yeah, dusted Roy> off): Roy> If the name server host for a particular domain is itself Roy> inside the domain, then a 'glue' record will be needed. A Roy> glue record is an A (address) RR that specifies the address Roy> of the server. Glue records are only needed in the server Roy> delegating the domain, not in the domain itself. As well as being illegal evidence -- thanks Peter! -- the last sentence above is ambiguous. It can be interpreted as implying the glue record in the parent means the child doesn't have to have an A (or AAAA) record for the name server. Roy> in-bailiwick glue is a pleonasm while out-of-bailiwick glue Roy> is an oxymoron. The terminology may not be defined clearly. However the concept of out-of-bailiwick glue is something we all understand.
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Jim Reid wrote:
"Roy" == Roy Arends <roy@dnss.ec> writes:
Roy> The term "GLUE RECORDS" is defined in rfc-1033 (yeah, dusted Roy> off):
Roy> If the name server host for a particular domain is itself Roy> inside the domain, then a 'glue' record will be needed. A Roy> glue record is an A (address) RR that specifies the address Roy> of the server. Glue records are only needed in the server Roy> delegating the domain, not in the domain itself.
As well as being illegal evidence -- thanks Peter! -- the last sentence above is ambiguous. It can be interpreted as implying the glue record in the parent means the child doesn't have to have an A (or AAAA) record for the name server.
I don't think it is illegal evidence, even though it has not an official status. It is referenced by 1034, etc,etc. The address record in the domain itself is not glue. It is authoritative data.
Roy> in-bailiwick glue is a pleonasm while out-of-bailiwick glue Roy> is an oxymoron.
The terminology may not be defined clearly. However the concept of out-of-bailiwick glue is something we all understand.
We think we understand, though we need better clarification about the glue concept, so we can agree we understand the same concept. Roy
participants (2)
-
Jim Reid -
Roy Arends