On Sep 6, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Tim Allen wrote:
> Steve Atkins wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> When you commit to providing services to this community, it is
>>> absolutely the business of that community on how the
>>> infrastructure is managed.
>> It is the business of the community that the services provided
>> are adequate and stable, certainly. That's become rather obvious
>> recently.
>> Irrelevant details of the server configuration that do not
>> directly affect those services aren't really something to gossip
>> about on a public mailing list, though.
>> The two are quite different things.
>
> Andrew was apparently suggesting that the configuration issue he
> mentioned is not irrelevant, and may be the actual cause of the
> problems.
No, he wasn't.
He was arguing that having a nameserver that allows resolution to the
entire net is a bad thing because it allows abusers to wash DoS
attacks through them. That's a perfectly reasonably opinion to have,
but one that's very unlikely to be related to recent problems with
the domain in question.
> Since he works for a domain registrar, I'm prepared to assume, at
> least as a working hypothesis, that he knows what he's talking
> about. At the least, I suggest it's wise to consider his opinion
> rather than tell him it's not his business.
If we were playing DNS body part size wars then who has the bigger
DNS clue might be relevant. We're not, though. Rather I'm saying that
publicly criticizing people who volunteer services to a project,
about things that are not related to the services they're providing
is at best a little impolite.
Cheers,
Steve
