On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Casey Deccio <ca...@deccio.net> wrote:
> > I use the same terminology also (i.e., "delegation NS records" vs. "glue > records"). > > But it should be noted that within existing RFCs the terminology differs: > > RFC 1034 4.2.1: > > ..."glue" RRs which are not > part of the authoritative data, and are address RRs for the servers. > > RFC 1034 4.2.2: > > ...delegation NS RRs and glue RRs > > but: > > RFC 2181 5.4.1: > > "Glue" above 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. > > > It's unclear whether "'glue' above" means "glue, for the purposes of this > document" or "glue, which we are restating the definition of", but it > sounds to me like the latter. In any case, the definition differs from > that previously stated (and my own understanding). > > Casey > > Interesting. RFC 2181, being 'Clarifications to the DNS spec' probably carries some weight, and lends support to Patrik Wallstrom's view that these could be called glue name(server) records. This also doesn't violate an intuitive understanding of the term glue, so I would not be opposed. (Yes, I also usually call them delegation NS records.) Shumon Huque
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
