This is a discussion on Re: Legitimate and working alternative roots, versus "dnslife.com.". - TCP-IP ; RJS> Nonsense. If you only want to see a part of the internet then RJS> go ahead and use the US government controlled root servers. p> Internet ( big 'I' ) , it's by definition "what the 13 ietf p> ...
RJS> Nonsense. If you only want to see a part of the internet then
RJS> go ahead and use the US government controlled root servers.
p> Internet ( big 'I' ) , it's by definition "what the 13 ietf
p> rootservers say"
Your definition is idiosyncratic, and possibly has just the one user (given
that only you seem to be labouring under the mistaken belief that the IETF
owns/runs the servers in question).
Seth Breidbart's definition of Internet (which has nothing at all to do with
DNS, let alone with "." content DNS servers) is a far better, and far more
widely adopted, one.
p> So anything not visible from "the official roots" is someones
The idea of one company's "." content DNS servers being "official" whilst
another company's "." content DNS servers are "non-official" is fallacious.
(Remember: Everyone's answer to "Who owns the root of the DNS namespace?" is
"I do.", despite what any corporation may claim to the contrary.)
RJS> Now if you're grabbing a root zone from some place which one to
RJS> use is a religious argument on the order of "vi vs. EMACS" and
RJS> there is no right answer. They all work, period. What's most
RJS> important is not what root zone you choose, but that you can
p> It's not a religious argument. There is Internet root's and
p> there is private closed-group roots.
The irony of your asserting that it is not a religious argument and then
immediately following that assertion with a patently religious claim that
there are such things as "Internet roots", is almost tangible.