SOA and NS are canonical records?

[June]

Checked RFC 1035 and 1034, did not see SOA or NS defined as a canonical name
there, more light on this?


"3.3. Standard RRs

The following RR definitions are expected to occur, at least
potentially, in all classes.  In particular, NS, SOA, CNAME, and PTR
will be used in all classes, and have the same format in all classes.
Because their RDATA format is known, all domain names in the RDATA
section of these RRs may be compressed."


> <phn at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu> wrote in message
> news:c7a0bt$2lvs$1 at sf1.isc.org...
> > June <nfbz2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > thanks for the reply.
> >
> > > Is there any reference says SOA and NS RRs both are canonical names?
Or
> all
> > > RRs, except CNAME (alias), are canonical names, by definition?
> >
> > Yes, rfc 1035
> >
> > > "The issue is what the "key" of this line is, the leftmost part." What
> do
> > > mean by saying this? Do you mean "interior node" is the leftmost part?
> >
> > Looking at the terminonlogy used in rfc1035 :
> > NAME            an owner name, i.e., the name of the node to which this
> >                 resource record pertains.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Peter Håkanson
> >         IPSec  Sverige      ( At Gothenburg Riverside )
> >            Sorry about my e-mail address, but i'm trying to keep spam
out,
> >    remove "icke-reklam" if you feel for mailing me. Thanx.
> >
>
>