On 04/08/2013 06:42 AM, Sam Wilson wrote:
In article <mailman.49.1365191296.20661.bind-us...@lists.isc.org>,
wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
Incidentally, we have just been asked for an A record for cam.ac.uk to
duplicate www.cam.ac.uk because, and I quote, "all the publicity
material
sent out by the nominator [for an award for the web site] gave the URL
as http://cam.ac.uk/ and this has been retweeted around".
Yes, sadly I've lost that technical battle with marketing several places
now.
And then there's theses folks:
http://no-www.org/
Is co-opting high-level name space for a single protocol a modern-day
landgrab?
Is holding on to the antiquated notion that every protocol needs a
unique hostname charmingly anachronistic, or just plain obstructionist?
(See what I did there?)
For bonus points, list the number of services running on your typical
server configuration, and then tell us how many of them have their own
hostnames. Start with dns, ssh, and ntp. Then describe how you
differentiate your SSL web service from your plain text version. Bonus
points if you're running ipp, nfs, or kerberos with their own unique
hostnames on the same system.
The point being that the world moved on, and putting websites on
hostnames that don't start with www. is the common case now. Can we save
our energy for something more productive?
Doug
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
