From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 2 10:29:39 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB2316A41A; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:29:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from skip@menantico.com) Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net (vms042pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7AD13C469; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:29:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from skip@menantico.com) Received: from mx.menantico.com ([71.168.196.161]) by vms042.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JM500EFG6H9YVX9@vms042.mailsrvcs.net>; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:29:33 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:34:59 -0400 From: Skip Ford In-reply-to: <46B1AC75.9060907@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton Mail-followup-to: Doug Barton , FreeBSD Current , FreeBSD Stable Message-id: <20070802103459.GI59008@menantico.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline References: <46B1AC75.9060907@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: FreeBSD Current , FreeBSD Stable Subject: Re: named.conf restored to hint zone for the root by default X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:29:39 -0000 Doug Barton wrote: > In an effort to find some kind of balance (I won't even try to say > "consensus") between those who hate the idea of slaving the root > zones, those who like the idea but don't want it to be the default, > and those who like the idea, I've made the following change: > > 1. Change the default behavior back to using a hint zone for the root. > 2. Leave the root slave zone config as a commented out example. > 3. Remove the B and F root servers from the example at the request of > their operators. > > I hope that we can now dial down the volume on the meta-issue of how > the change was done, and focus on the operational issues of whether > it's a good idea or not. Thanks. I'm afraid the consensus has to come from the operators, not from FreeBSD folks. If the operators were required to support it, I think everyone should slave the roots, not just those running busy servers. Just like I'd think everyone should sync with stratum-1 servers if those operators supported everyone doing that. -- Skip