David Conrad wrote: > On Jul 9, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: >> the freebsd experiment proved this to my satisfaction, > > My understanding of "the freebsd experiment" you keep referencing was that > one individual on the FreeBSD core team decided to change the default on an > OS distribution in a very unexpected and infrastructure impacting way without > significant (any?) public notice, resulting in an 'interesting' set of > surprises for folks who merely upgraded their OS.
that happened, except that the backout of this config feature was driven not just by the experiences of those surprised by it, but also by those who knew it was coming and knew it was happening. two wizard level freebsd power users went so far as to describe a failure caused by the root zone timing out due to an upstream firewall change. rather than teach the system how to monitor and report this sort of thing, and back out the local root zone if it went stale, there was a brief and overdue cost:benefit analysis after which this config was backed out of freebsd itself. > Can you please point to your evidence that the failure of "the freebsd > experiment" was driven by a lack of skill "to both configure and operate and > audit and debug a stealth root slave"? i did not keep notes as to who did or said what and on which dates. perhaps doug barton could be persuaded to say more. vixie
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
