Talk:MaraDNS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just to show people I support the no self-promotion edict, I, the author of MaraDNS, will not expand this article. Samboy 05:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed my mind. Once 1.1 hits beta (projected date: Early November), I'll expand this article. Samboy 07:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

As long as you observe NPOV guidelines, you should be OK. In any case, there are a few people that watch this article, and may revert or edit any contributions that are deemed to be biased. I don't get the impression that you'd do that, though. Mindmatrix 20:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Maybe this expanded article will get more people to test the 1.1/1.2 branch, which will result in a better 1.2 release. Also, by commiting to releasing 1.2 in December here, I am more likely to actually release MaraDNS 1.2 this year (The 1.1 branch has had almost as many delays as a Microsoft release).  :)

Talking to myself, but I think the main NPOV problem here is that this article is longer than the BIND article (the djbdns article has the same problem). Samboy 08:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not a NPOV problem, that simply represents a lack of contributors to the BIND article. So long as the contents of this article don't make any unwarranted, and unverifiable, claims about MaraDNS, there's absolutely no problem. BTW:, I'd be careful about saying things like this expanded article will get more people to test the 1.1/1.2 branch, since that could be interpreted to mean you're using Wikipedia to advertise. As it stands right now, the article doesn't read like an ad, so there's nothing to worry about. Just thought I'd mention it, just in case. Anyway, I also thought I'd mention that I'll probably take a stab at copyediting the article, once you've added what you need to. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page, or just leave a message here. Mindmatrix 02:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Some minor corrections:

"1.2 will be fully compatible with 1.0 data files"

Actually, if there is a misspelled parameter in a 1.0 data file, this parameter is ignored in 1.0 and causes a fatal error (with the name of tha parameter causing the problem) in 1.2

"MaraDNS can resolve any site that other DNS servers can resolve"

Actually, in the very rare case where:

• You have a glueless NS referral
• And this referral which resolves to a list of IP records
• And the first IP in that list refers to a dead host

MaraDNS will not be able to resolve the host name in question. Samboy 00:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, I don't know my DNS terms nearly as well as you do; what does glueless NS referral mean? I'm mostly curious about the glueless part...

BTW: did you post the above to discuss how to change those sentences, or were you identifying problems and asking for someone else to re-write the relevant portions? Mindmatrix 02:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, well, writing a DNS server has made me learn more about DNS than I ever wanted to know. About a "glueless NS referral", I feel a Wiki article in the making here:

When a recursive DNS server requests for the name of a domain, they send a request roughly like this:

"I want the IP for www.example.com."

Assuming an empty cache, they will send the above question to a root DNS server.

The root DNS server will tell the recursive cache something along the lines of: "I don't have the answer, but the .com servers are named 'ns1.root-servers-for.com.' and 'ns2.root-servers-for.com'. 'ns1.root-servers-for.com.' has the IP 10.1.2.3. 'ns2.root-servers-for.com.' has the IP 192.168.55.67"

The recursive cache will then ask 10.1.2.3 or 192.168.55.67 "I want the IP for www.example.com"

The .com DNS server will answer in one of the following forms:

"I don't have the answer, but the example.com. servers are named 'a.ns.example.com.' and 'b.ns.example.com.'. 'a.ns.example.com.' has the IP 172.18.4.5. 'b.ns.example.com' has the IP 10.55.32.44."

This is called a glued NS referral; the glue is the "'a.ns.example.com.' has the IP 172.18.4.5. 'b.ns.example.com' has the IP 10.55.32.44." part of the answer.

However, the .com DNS server may give us a glueless NS referral:

"I don't have the answer, but the example.com. servers are named 'a.ns.example.net.' and 'b.ns.example.net.'"

In this referral, we are only given the names, and not the IPs of the name servers; the recursive nameserver now has to go back to the roots to get the IPs for these nameservers before continuing to resolve the name in question.

As for the rest, yes, please rewrite to make more accurate; I glossed over details to make the description simpler (an encyclopeida article for a fairly obscure open-source program should be short and concise). Samboy 05:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I knew about the dynamics of the process, but I had never heard the term glueless to refer to it. I guess that's my new fact for the day :-)

In terms of the article itself, I agree that being concise is important, but that doesn't mean the article needs to be short. The fact that the project is obscure doesn't mean a comprehensive article cannot be written about it. Wikipedia has lengthy articles about obscure places in the world, for example. I don't think this article needs to be lengthy, either, but there's no reason to keep the article short. Here's what I think can be done:

• create a short History section
  • perhaps describe why it was created, when other similar tools existed
• provide a list of primary features
• provide a comparison of major features between MaraDNS and BIND, PowerDNS, djbdns etc.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's other info that can be added. Does that seem reasonable? Mindmatrix 14:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the place to start is to make sure the BIND article is nicely fleshed out. I don't think it is particularily balanced that the djbdns article and the MaraDNS articles are larger than the BIND article; about 85% of the domains are served with BIND; about 5-10% of the domains are served with djbdns, and the rest of the domains out there are served with other DNS servers. The size of articles should correspond somewhat with the popularity of a given DNS server; and not be adversely affected by which DNS implementor happens to be a Wikipedia editor. Samboy 22:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the DNS link which previously pointed to a disambiguation page. But should it be the full name or the abbrevation which links? Kasperd 14:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)