[bind10-dev] Zone loading requirements, take 1

[Peter Koch]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 03:20:56PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:

> I'm kind of inclined to think that a CNAME should "hide" the other
> RRtypes at that name, in a way similar to an NS record "hiding" longer
> names.

either way might lead to inconsistent responses in a multi vendor
environment.  And actually that is a good thing(tm), otherwise
there's too much temptation to regulate (standardize) the
'correct' handling of non compliant zone content.

> Hm... RFC 1035 pre-dates the SHOULD/MUST/MAY language of modern RFCs,
> and maybe this particular recommendation has been superseded, but it
> seems to indicate that actually the SOA should be the first record in
> section 5.2:
> 
>    2. Exactly one SOA RR should be present at the top of the zone.

I would read "at the top of the zone" meaning (in today's words)
"at the zone apex" rather than "at the top of the zone file".

-Peter