Re: Bind 9 AXFR Modification vs AXFR Clarification

[gson@nominum.com (Andreas Gustafsson)]

Dean Anderson writes:
> > > Zone definition and content is not an AXFR issue.  Server administrators
> > > provide the definition of zone boundaries. (RFC 1034 Section 2.3 and
> > > elsewhere)  AXFR merely gives the contents of the zone as has been defined
> > > according to the boundaries and content specified by the administrator.
> >
> > This is exactly what the draft says, so what are you disagreeing with?
> 
> Uhh, no. Draft 05 says quite a bit more.  It subtly changes a number of
> things that shouldn't be, and don't need to be changed. In fact, looking
> at my copy, it doesn't say anything like the above at all.  (But assuming
> it did, it would be redundant and could be deleted).

The draft says many things, and I understand that you are objecting to
several of them, but we were specifically discussing zone boundaries,
the subject of section 4.  Your statement that "server administrators
provide the definition of zone boundaries" is consistent with the
draft's existing wording and inconsistent with the BIND 4 / BIND 8
handling of zone boundaries which you previously claimed to support.

> Section 4 should be deleted.  Clearly, glue records need to be merged in.

Are you saying section 4 should be deleted because you disagree with
it, or because you find it obviously correct and therefore redundant?
Also, which glue records need to be merged into what?
-- 
Andreas Gustafsson, gson@nominum.com