[142310] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Finch)
Tue Jun 21 06:16:13 2011
In-Reply-To: <20110620232906.36A3810F19E1@drugs.dv.isc.org>
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:14:30 +0100
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 21 Jun 2011, at 00:29, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>=20
> I will repeat my assertion. There is no such thing as glue records
> for the nameservers at the top of the zone within the zone itself
> be they in-baliwick or not. Glue records live in the parent zone
> and are there to avoid the catch 22 situation of needing the records
> to find the records.
I understand "in-bailiwick" to be a property of the name of a nameserver, in=
dependent of whether you are looking at the glue or authoritative NS RRs - i=
t is not the same as "in-zone". In-bailiwick nameservers must have glue. But=
you said ''There is also no such thing as 'in-bailiwick glue for the TLD's D=
NS servers'.'' I think you are arguing about the meaning and location of glu=
e, whereas I am arguing about the meaning of "in-bailiwick".
Tony.=20
--
f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
