BIND 9.3.2 and temp box.

[Kevin Darcy]

Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <el5h0s$14qi$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
>  Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> The simple fact remains that there is no standard which unambiguously 
>> allows the first RR of a master file to omit the TTL, in the absence of 
>> a $TTL directive, and at least one standard (1035), which clearly 
>> implies that a TTL is mandatory for the first RR. The fact that RFC 2308 
>> finally clarified the point doesn't make it the relevant standard here.
>>     
>
> This is all just silly, academic argumentation.  The DE FACTO standard 
> for over a decade was that the SOA MINIMUM field specified the default 
> TTL.  What's the point of saying now that the way practically everyone 
> had been doing it for years was a violation of the original standard?
>   
Chris Thompson claimed that the correct reference in the "no TTL 
specified" FAQ entry should be RFC 2308 rather than RFC 1035. Mark and I 
explained why RFC 1035 was in fact the correct reference. That's all 
that this is about, possible editorial correction to the FAQ entry. How 
some implementations may or may not have (mis)interpreted and/or 
followed/deviated from the standards in the past doesn't seem 
particularly relevant.

                                                                         
            - Kevin