About root zones

[michoski]

On 1/3/12 12:46 PM, "Kevin Darcy" <kcd at chrysler.com> wrote:
> Those server folks have strange ideas about name resolution. Strange
> enough that sometimes I don't even understand what the hell they are
> trying to accomplish.

In all fairness, lots of folks have strange ideas.  We should start with
standards -- software should be built based on BCPs (peer review rules).  If
those don't meet our needs, we should help to get them updated (good luck, I
know -- many standards bodies have become like political lobbyists)

> So no, the system resolver is not "good enough for BIND". Not in my
> book. I'm responsible for BIND, I'm not going to stick my neck out
> making my subsystem dependent on someone's else's subsystem, when I have
> no confidence that they know what they're doing and/or that they're
> doing the right things.

Maybe it's because I started in networking...  But TCP/IP (or IPv6 these
days) is quite the "subsystem" to avoid.  Really, like it or not, you are
actually responsible for understanding interactions with "subsystems" your
managed system must interact with.  ;-)

> possibly even trust boundaries. I've already outlined in my previous
> message some possible ways to obviate these "internal" queries, along
> with the suggestion that maybe at the end of the day it's actually more
> trouble than it's worth...

That's the problem.  Such suggestions won't ever become BCPs, since they
aren't easily justifiable to business minds.  Granted, personal preferences
are always welcome...but "more trouble than it's worth" and "business
priority" or even "POLA" don't jive.

-- 
Don't worry about avoiding temptation -- as you grow older, it starts
avoiding you.  -- The Old Farmer's Almanac