Question about the ADDITIONAL SECTION

[Clenna Lumina]

Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <f5c1g3$2839$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
> "Clenna Lumina" <savagebeaste at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I have a question. I am using ZoneEdit.com to slave some zones I
>> have, and I noticed their servers never return the ADDITIONAL
>> SECTION which should contain the A records for the NS servers that
>> were returned in the AUTHORITY SECTION.
>>
>> Naturally, my local master Bind server return that section, like a
>> good DNS server.
>>
>> I'm assuming they are using "minimal-responses: yes" in their
>> named.conf.
>
> Or maybe "fetch-glue no", if the nameservers are in domains that
> ZoneEdit.com doesn't manage.
>
>> So my question is, isn't it going against how DNS is supposed to
>> work, in regards to authoritative lookups, to NOT return A records
>> for the NS's listed in the AUTHORITY section?
>
> If it's the fetch-glue option, this simply shifts the responsibility
> to the client nameserver to look them up.
>
>> To my knowledge, "minimal-responses: yes" should only be used for
>> caching (resolving) servers only, right?
>>
>> Thanks for any help clearing this up.

I don't think it's fetch-glue, or if it is I don't think they should be 
usign that either. In my situation, I use tw oof their servers for 
slaving a couple domains, and my master server from which they get their 
info is not listed with na NS record; the two ZoneEdit slaves are the 
ones listed in my domains's parent zones. The reason for this setup is 
so the network the master server on doesn't get so much traffic from all 
the queries. The only traffic is from updates and checks of the master 
zones by the slaves.

It works well, but I really think that ZoneEdit's slave servers shoudl 
be returning the ADDITIONAL SECTION with the A records of the two NS's, 
should it not? Isn't it against the specifications/RFCs to not do so if 
you'ree authoritative for the zone being queried???


-- 
CL