Subject: draft-stjohns-secure-notify-00.txt

From: [email-masked] (Andreas Gustafsson)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:39:02 -0700 (PDT)

In draft-stjohns-secure-notify-00.txt, M. StJohns writes:
>   In fact, best practice requires that a zone be served by at least one
>   server that can be referenced by a name not within that zone.

My interpretation of RFC2182 is that a zone should have at least one
server on a geographically and topologically distinct network, but I
see no requirement that it be referenced by a name in a different
zone.

>   The parent zone MUST verify the names pointed to by the NS are
>   resolvable, that at least one name points to a server not named in
>   the child zone, and that it has glue A records for any server named
>   in the child zone. [Q:  Does this make sense, or is it better to just
>   trust the child?] If these conditions are not satisfied, the parent
>   server MUST NOT install the new records, and MUST log the problem

I don't think this makes sense.  Whether the best practice is to have
a server in a different zone or just on a different network, it is
just an operational recommendation and not something that should be
enforced as part of the protocol.
-- 
Andreas Gustafsson, [email-masked]

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>