|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: gotta love those internic boyz (fwd)
At 12:05 13/11/98 +1100, somebody whose name wasn't quoted wrote: >Oh boy, seems Vixie shoudl join IRSC, we don't have these kinds of problems. > >Perhaps it's time the various parties that wish to stand by the history >realised that cooperation on a wider scale might help? Cooperation occurred and is occurring. "IRSC" is semantic line noise. [email protected] (Adam Todd Snr) added: > Hey Paul Vixie! Attention Paul Vixie! Yo. > Now that there have been a few too many stuff ups with the old legacy Root > Servers, and especially as you've copped the heat this time, why not offer > the option and ship bind with an IRSC section! Because DNS was designed to replace HOSTS.TXT, and BIND is a DNS implementation. If you want every site's "view of the naming universe" to depend on the politics of that site's owners, then you should avoid DNS and use something which will more reliably suit your private naming purposes, such as HOSTS.TXT. The 4BSD tapes have a useful utility which can transform files in HOSTS.TXT format into /etc/hosts format. Go to it! > Then let the consumers choose! See above. DNS is a distributed, reliable, coherent, autonomous database. You mess with any of those things and you have something which isn't DNS or which is a horrid example of DNS. Specifically, please stop pretending that coherence is optional. > Wouldn't it bet better they had the choice to accept a service, then be > DENIED the knowledge and option of selecting a service. Seems like a lot of folks keep blathering the same old crap about how the proletariat ought to control the naming system, by chaos if nothing else, and that your views are adequately represented. BIND, being a DNS implementation, takes no notice of your activities, which are not DNS at all. -- Paul Vixie <[email protected]>
|