Difference in SOA record between master and slave?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <38B67F4D.818.46F3E26 at localhost>,
Richard Stevenson <RichardS at webmasters.co.nz> wrote:
>My initial thought was that the zone file wasn't being transferred  
>correctly, but that's not the case (I've pasted in both files below - from  
>the master and from the slave).  It looks as if ns1.akl.adv.net.nz is  
>ignoring the TTL specified on the SOA record in favour of the minimum TTL  
>in the SOA record itself.  Is this normal? 

The specification of negative caching says that the SOA records's TTL
should be set to the minimum of the MinTTL and the TTL specified explicitly
for the SOA record.  I suspect this is because early drafts of the ncache
specification said to use the SOA record's TTL as the ncache TTL.  So this
ensures that servers that implement that earlier scheme will use the proper
ncache TTL when they're talking to newer servers.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.