SOA "minimum" vs "negative ttl"

[Evan Hunt]

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
4034.

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.