[dns-operations] FreeBSD and the slaving of the root zone

[Chris Yarnell]

Just to clarify my input to everyone else:

I happen to agree with you re the idea, but the point I was trying to get 
across to Doug (and by proxy others watching) is that it's irresponsible 
for the maintainer of a default configuration in popular OS to make an 
operational change like this without discussing it with the appropriate 
operators well in advance.  Apologizing after the fact and saying that 
he'll selectively undo it for those who ask is just more plainly wrong to 
me.

I think there will be a lot of debate over the merits of this type of 
change in behaviour -- I just don't think the actual reversal of the 
change should get bogged down in that.  It seems fundamentally wrong for 
this change to be left as is until each root hosting organization that is 
impacted by it (that it's pointing at now) has agreed to provide this 
service as a default install type of production service (yes, I saw that 
it's off by default).

re re:

On 7/31/07 11:08 PM, "Paul Vixie" <paul at vix.com> wrote:

> i don't mind the axfr traffic.  what i mind is that a service f-root 
> provides for diagnostic purposes is now a production service in the eyes 
> of many, and if we decided to stop offering it, there would be 
> operational consequences.
>
> the reason the change should be reversed is that it's a bad idea, 
> pure&simple. it has nothing to do with opt-in, opt-out, or traffic load. 
> wizards who want to do this upon reading malone's paper or independently 
> thinking of it, can, and will know their costs and benefits.  it should 
> never be the default, ever.
>
> re:
>
>> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Chris Yarnell <Chris.Yarnell at nominum.com>
>> To: "dns-operations at lists.oarci.net" <dns-operations at lists.oarci.net>
>> Subject: Re: [dns-operations] FreeBSD and the slaving of the root zone
>> Sender: dns-operations-bounces at lists.oarci.net
>> 
>> being rude to do so without prior coordination. If I have offended the 
>> operators of B, C, F, G or K (or any of the others for that matter) I 
>> apologize. That was certainly not my intention. If the operators of 
>> those servers ask to have them removed I will do so at once.
>
> The polite response would have been to reverse the change and open a 
> discussion with said operators and allow them to opt-in.  Instead, you 
> are forcing them to opt-out.  Many of them do not actively read this, or 
> many other, lists.
>
> You state later in your missive that you have been thinking about this 
> for a long period of time.  How many of the operators have you discussed 
> your proposed change and use of their open AXFR with?