Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-koerber-dnsind-glue-00.txt

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:47:16 -0600

I have several questions about draft-koerber-dnsind-glue-00.txt, some
or all of which are naive.

You probably considered having a single GNUE RR type with an
indicator of which type of address RDATA it contained.  Why did you
prefer three types plus a query type?

The GLUE record types are intended to make the servers for the parent
zone carefully distinguish glue addresses from authoritative address
records in replies.  But the server can already tell the two apart
when it loads a zone file, can't it?  And then return them in the
careful way your draft wants?  I've just tested and some servers (eg,
Multinet's BIND-based server) do carefully return glue only as
additional info, while others (eg, all the root servers) do not.

Do you think a similar thing needs to be done for NS records?  After
all, the NS records for the child zone which are contained in the
parent's zone file are not authoritative and a better set may be
found in the child zone.
				Matt Crawford

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 17:54:39 +0600

I agree with Matt, I see little need for explicit glue records.
	The requirement to seperate glue from answers and not to promote
	glue to answers comes from RFC 2181, Section 5.4.1. Ranking data.

	Fixing implementations not to put glue A* and NS RRsets into the
	answer section will be much faster and easier to achieve than
	getting GLUE* to work.

	For those that didn't catch it NS are glue in the parent and should
	be treated as such.

	I feel the goal here is correct, I just don't like the mechanism. 

	Mark

--
Mark Andrews, Internet Engines Inc. / Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]