.net delegation question

[CharlesH]

In article <c3rvha$2c4h$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
Ketil Froyn  <isc_bind at ketil.froyn.name> wrote:
>On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 21:41, CharlesH wrote:
>> I am getting a
>> 
>> enforced delegation-only for 'net' (ns2.9t5.net/A/IN) from
>192.42.93.30#53        
>> message from my named ( bind-9.2.2-P3 ). And indeed, and "dig +trace
>> ns2.9t5.net" on a server without the delegation patch shows an A record
>> coming from 192.5.6.30(A.GTLD-SERVERS.net). Is Verisign up to some
>> monkey business again, or why exactly is this server returning something
>> other than a NS delegation?
>
>That looks like a glue record. The domain 9t5.net has status
>REGISTRAR-HOLD, and it is out of the zone, but that doesn't mean they
>have to take the glue out of the zone. It will probably disappear if the
>domain is deleted.
>
>It looks like this is an example where careful thought put into DNS
>operations by the operator of .net is broken by delegation-only
>functionality. The operator of .net has chosen to leave glue in the zone
>despite putting the domain on hold. This means that other domains using
>this as a name server (even ones in different zones) keep working. I
>assume some of those domains exist, otherwise you probably wouldn't be
>getting that message from named.

So you are saying other domains use ns2.9t5.net in their NS records?
But if this domain is on "REGISTER-HOLD", why aren't they just out
of luck?  Why should the glue record stay around if the registrar has
"suspended" the domain?