On 23.11.2017 15:00, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > On 23 November 2017 at 06:19, Havard Eidnes <h...@uninett.no > <mailto:h...@uninett.no>> wrote: > > Hi, > > draft 07 says: > > Primary master: "The primary master is named in the zone's SOA MNAME > field and optionally by an NS RR". (Quoted from [RFC1996], > Section 2.1). [RFC2136] defines "primary master" as "Master > server at the root of the AXFR/IXFR dependency graph. The primary > master is named in the zone's SOA MNAME field and optionally by an > NS RR. There is by definition only one primary master server per > zone." The idea of a primary master is only used by [RFC2136], > and is considered archaic in other parts of the DNS. > > First: the last sentence's claim that the idea of a "primary > master" is only used by RFC 2136 is surely incorrect. It is also > used in RFC 1996, where the first quote is taken from. > > > I think the intent of the text is that an name is only used by the > protocol in RFC 2136. It is referenced as a concept in RFC 1996, but > not used by the protocol. But I agree that the text above is confusing, > and if that's the intent then it should be rewritten. > > > > Secondly: can someone please explain to me why the idea of a > "primary master" where the zone data originates from and where > updates are performed is considered archaic? > > > That doesn't make sense to me either. Perhaps somebody thinks that > Update messages are no longer in use?
Not really, many Microsoft Active Directory instances have integrated DNS and it uses DNS update to keep client machine's record up-to-date. What is "archaic" is probably concept of primary master, because big systems often have multi-master architecture (AD, or FreeIPA to name an open-source one). -- Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
