named.conf restored to hint zone for the root by default

John Merryweather Cooper john_m_cooper at
Fri Aug 3 18:39:20 PDT 2007

Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> I'm getting tired of repeating this. A lot of really smart people are
>> lined up on BOTH sides of this issue. You might want to take another
>> look at the threads about this on the OARC list (or even this list for
>> that matter) and try to have an open mind. Repeating "this is a bad
>> idea" over and over again doesn't make it more true.
> No, they aren't.  I'm actually quite amazed at your resistance to
> hearing what is being said.
> Several people (not "a lot") think that slaving the root zone makes some
> good operational sense in specific scenarios.  One person thought that
> the world would be a better place if it were operationally possible.
> NOBODY thinks that this will work in the real world, today, in a stable
> manner.
> NOBODY thinks that having *every* home user slaving the root makes good
> sense, even if it was operationally possible.
> And NOBODY thinks that "just doing it without asking first" was a good
> way to handle it.
> I'm really not sure why I wasted the keystrokes to write this, because
> you've been consistently willing to ignore pretty much everything said
> to you so far.  I guess I'm just praying that perhaps, just maybe, this
> time you'll start paying attention.

I would appreciate it if the personal attacks ceased.  As an observer
with no ax to grind on this issue, it is apparent that slaving the root
zone is technically possible, but not necessarily good policy.  It would
be nice if those arguing against slaving the root zone would articulate
the specific effects on top-tier servers and quantify them.

As it is, this thread is painful to read because of the
dross-to-substance ratio being rather high.


More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list