In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 1:34 PM -0500 2005-07-28, wayne wrote: > >> I don't see the point in eliminating all but one bitnames.com name >> server. I don't think we need to have the pool name servers >> distributed over several organizations. On the contrary, I would >> suggest eliminating everyone except the bitnames.com name servers. > > I was operating under the assumption that there was still a > strong desire to maintain maximum diversity between the > nameservers, and continue to have multiple different groups > provide these services. Assuming that's the case, then > eliminating all but the "best" nameserver in each group would > make the most sense. Hmmm... While I recall a lot of discussions about diversity of members in the ntp pool, I don't recall any discussion about the organizational diversity of the name servers. Actually, I don't recall that much discussion about the name servers at all. My impression was that, initially, no one person had a geographic/network diverse set of name servers, so helpful people donated individual name servers. What advantages are there to having many different organizations contributing name servers? I can't think of any, and I can think of disadvantages such as communication problems. > But these kinds of things are definitely a team effort, and I > can't say enough good things about this team! Indeed. -wayne _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
