SOA "minimum" vs "negative ttl"
each at isc.org
Thu Jan 24 01:30:58 UTC 2013
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 01:05:33AM +0000, Jack Tavares wrote:
> When a DNS update comes into to add or modify a record and bind
> eventually re-writes the master file it will rearrange the SOA and add
> comments (which is fine) but it labels
> Is there a reason for this or is it just a hold over?
Some of both, I think. RFC 2308 changed the semantics of the field, but
not its name; it's still called "SOA minimum" even though it represents
something else, and it's referenced that way in subsequent RFCs such as
Also, IMHO, there's a pretty good chance that if we changed the comment
from "minimum" to "ncache ttl", it'll turn out someone had a script that
depended on the existing format. I don't mind breaking people's scripts
if there's a compelling reason, but I'm not sure the benefit here is all
that significant, so inertia wins this round. :)
Evan Hunt -- each at isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
More information about the bind-users