Root server cannot be a forwarder?
xiaoxia2005a at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 21 03:19:30 UTC 2006
Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <ehbkg4$1g42$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
> Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:
> > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 04:43:55AM -0700,
> > > April <xiaoxia2005a at yahoo.com> wrote
> > > a message of 18 lines which said:
> > >
> > >
> > >> I'm not talking about the Roots for the Internet, but a namespace in
> > >> general.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I do not recognize DNS vocabulary and ontology. On a BIND mailing
> > > list, using the DNS terminology seems a good start :-)
> > >
> > I don't see any problem with the terminology: a root server is a server
> > that answers authoritatively when queried for the root zone. Whether the
> > client or the server happens to be on the Internet shouldn't have any
> > bearing on the terminology used, it's only the context of the transaction.
> But that's not what people were referring to by "root server" in this
> thread, either. They're using the term "root server" to mean "server
> for the root of my domain". In other words, on the Acme Corporation
> network, the server that hosts acme.com is their "root server".
do you know what you are talking about?
> I think people really need to learn to be less pedantic. When context
> makes the meaning clear, we can survive sloppy terminology and
> ambiguity. The fact that someone asks a question like the one in the OP
> indicates that they don't have much expertise in this area, so do you
> really expect them to be fully familiar with our terminology? We're
> smart people, we can figure out what they mean even if they don't use
> the exactly correct words.
> Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
> Arlington, MA
> *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
> *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
this is so funny, are you serious? I think I met this guy some where
before, and he was there to pretend to be smart and professional, and
now he is here again.. DNS is not about terminology, period!
Let me check anything he posted meaningful here ...
More information about the bind-users