<html>
<body>
Servers and zones are part of the physical instancing of DNS roots.
The definition of the root precedes the instance. In short,
the definition of a naming structure is disjoint from the delivery and
usage of that structure, be it servers and zones or whatever.<br><br>
Regarding the separation of servers and zones, this is already common
practice. BIND provides a good example of this. With BIND, one can
serve an arbitrary set of zones from an arbitrary set of servers, subject
to the ability to do zone transfers. So there is obvious
separation.<br><br>
Cutler<br><br>
At 11:35 PM 7/9/2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:<br>
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 06:08:25PM -0400, James R. Cutler wrote:<br>
> Actually, many naming and addressing
management experts consider that<br>
> the existence of a root defines a unique
namespace.<br><br>
The existence of a root *zone* yes.<br><br>
We really should separate root *servers* from *root* zones.<br><br>
Cheers,<br>
-- jra<br>
-- <br>
Jay R.
Ashworth
jra@baylink.com<br>
Designer
Baylink
RFC 2100<br>
Ashworth & Associates The
Things I
Think
'87 e24<br>
St Petersburg FL USA
<a href="http://baylink.pitas.com������������" eudora="autourl">
http://baylink.pitas.com
</a> +1 727 647 1274<br><br>
If you can read this... thank a system
administrator. Or two. --me<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font face="Courier, Courier">-<br>
James R. Cutler<br>
james.cutler@consultant.com<br>
</font></body>
</html>