Sorry for the top-post. As I understand things, this is more than a "choice". RFC 2181 requires it, I think, no?
-- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums. > On Jul 15, 2015, at 06:00, John Dickinson <j...@sinodun.com> wrote: > > > >> On 14/07/2015 17:26, Casey Deccio wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org >> <mailto:paul.hoff...@vpnc.org>> wrote: >> >> On 13 Jul 2015, at 14:20, Casey Deccio wrote: >> >> >> 4. In the definition of RRset, the bit about TTLs needing to be >> the same >> seems out of place for this terminology document. That is an >> operational >> requirement. >> >> >> Disagree. To some people, TTLs are operational, to others they are >> part of the master file format. For the latter, this sameness >> applies to the definition. > > No, the zone file can contain different TTLs. As far as I know most > implementations choose to reduce the TTLs for all RRs in an RRSet to the > lowest value. > >> >> What I am saying is that whether the TTLs are the same (correct) or the >> TTLs are different (incorrect), it doesn't change the definition of >> RRset, which is the set of RRs with the same name/class/type. Therefore >> the requirement that the TTL be the same is not a useful statement for >> the definitions doc, whether it's operational or standards-based. > > I agree. > John > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
