Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:21:52 -0400 From: "Dan Langille" <dan@langille.org> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Cc: freebsd-hubs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DRAFT - DNS Admin Guide Message-ID: <3EF9F650.2909.40C896BC@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20030625230852.GA21537@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> References: <3EF9A5FD.22140.3F8EC95E@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25 Jun 2003 at 19:08, Ken Smith wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 01:39:09PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote: > > > You are not the only ones. We have http://www.nzfug.nz.freebsd.org/ > > and the nzfug mailing list which goes with it. > > Ok, I understand the previous question a bit better as far as deciding > on terms for delegation, sub-delegation, etc. This helped me see a > bit more than I had been. > > Assuming the load on dnsadm@ isn't too great I think this sort of > thing can fall under what I described in the last one. The folks > that want nzfug.nz.freebsd.org send the request to dnsadm@, who > function as the coordinator for DNS analogous to there being a coordinator > for FTP mirrors. > They delegated nz.freebsd.org to you a while ago > so they talk to you. In the end if nzfug does come into being the > dnsadm@ coordinator records all the info about them (site contact, > etc) at that level. Now if you were to disappear dnsadm@ can still > contact nzfug to see if they can pick up the pieces. DNS is distributed. The actions should be distributed as well. Why should people contact dnsadm@ if they want to add hosts to nz.freebsd.org? Why minimize email traffic and have the the person in charge of nz.freebsd.org send site contact details to dnsadm@ for record keeping purposes. It put the work where it should be. In the region. That frees up the dnsadm@. -- Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EF9F650.2909.40C896BC>