It appears that Puneet Sood <pune...@google.com> said: >Couple of comments and a readability suggestion > >* +1 to Geoff Huston's request to provide justification for why >sibling glue is desirable in a response. Also would prefer to not make >it mandatory in a referral response. ...
I would prefer we completely remove the sibling glue, or at most move it to an appendix of possbily useful minor improvements. We say that authoritative servers MUST return all the glue, which is true for real glue, but not true for sibling glue (unless the sibling is in a loop which is not something to encourage.) Let's not confuse people, please. >* Section 5: Promoted or orphan glue >The considerations for handling orphan glue will be different for a >TLD vs a lower level zone within a domain. I would think that orphan >glue in a TLD context should go away when a zone is deleted/expired. >Maybe even have sanity checking to prevent such an operation. This is a political question, not a technical one. If the DNS operator has external knowledge that the orphan's domain has not been delegated to someone else, you can make a case to leave the glue. The usual example is a name in a TLD which has expired but is still in the grace period, but it can happen anywhere someone delegates names; I run registries at the third level like watkins-glen.ny.us. I don't see how we can offer any more than general and vague advice here. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
