Talk:Domain Name System

Contents

1 Pictures? 2 What is a zone? 3 How DNS works 4 Page move 4.1 Domain Name Services → Domain Name System. 5 URLs? 6 hosts file 7 Relevant External links were removed

Pictures?

Diagrams would be helpful.

What is a zone?

Define "zone", please. Mr. Jones 16:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How DNS works

In the section "How the DNS works" it asserts that the "browser starts out knowing only the IP address of a root server", which provides it with the proper subordinate server. Yet, in fact, a web browser uses whatever DNS server is specified for the client; this is usually the DNS server of their ISP, not the root server. AFAIK, the root servers are rarely directly queried by clients. I don't know the proper way to correct this. Centrx 22:26, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

not only that but the browser just makes a system call to the operating system resolver library like gethostbyname() and gethostbyaddress(), this stub resolver then queries the dns, and the dns is not the only possible name resolution system, there is also /etc/hosts lmhosts winz and other micrsoft monstrosoties and nis, nis++ and other sun monstrosities.

---

I corrected this. It's actually the ISP's DNS server that has the list of root servers. I'm going to do further clarification when I have some more time. Technically it's not the "browser" that does the DNS querying at all, it's actually the TCP/IP stack in the computer. I also don't want the article to become overly technical so I'll have to figure out a way to get that in there without making the whole thing unnecessarily complex. Gutzalpus 19:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, actually it's not the TCP/IP stack which does the queries (think about the "layering violation" concept) but the resolver library, which is usually one of the system libraries and probably runs in the same addresses space of the browser. --Md 21:31, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Page move

(from WP:RM)

Domain Name Services → Domain Name System.

• Gdr 09:02, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
  • Seems like a bad rename (to "Services") to me; agree we should move it back. I have asked the person who did the rename to "Services" (Lysdexia) to please explain their rationale for their rename. Noel 18:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Incorrect name, doesn't follow singular noun convention. -- Wapcaplet 19:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Should be Domain Name System indeed -- Jacco Tunnissen, Dnssec.net
  • Hi, the article is mostly about the carrying out of the domain name resolution, and services has always been used for that effect. The system is the drawing out of how a service works. So the new revision describing the service as a system is wrong. lysdexia 17:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying (1) that the article is mostly about domain name resolution; and (2) domain name resolution is better known as "domain name services". Is that right? Point (1) is fair but the article does touch on the overall system and you must remember that this is Wikipedia and no article is finished. I think your point (2) is wrong, this is surely best known as "domain name resolution". My main concern is that "Domain Name System" is the most common name for the system, and what would Wikipedia have under that title if not a description of the system and the services it offers? Gdr 19:37, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
    • The system as a whole (architecture, protocols, servers, etc) is definitely known as the Domain Name System - see all the RFC's, etc. If some end-user computer has a subsystem which users/applications talk to is appropriately called the "Domain Name Services", and it deserves a page, fine. However, the Domain Name System (architecture, etc) richly deserves (nay, requires) a page - a page which would include, IMO, a description of how a name is resolved in it. Is there some content on the current page that you think would be inappropriate for an article named "Domain Name System"? What page would it properly belong on? Noel 04:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • DNS should be Domain Name System, it covers a wide variety of aspects of which a DNS service or server is only a part, albeit an important one. The RFCs should be considered the primary source in the definition here. --BenM 07:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • From RFC 1034 -- "This RFC is an introduction to the Domain Name System (DNS)..." 'nuf said! --calkid 16:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Unless you somehow believe you know better than the likes of Jon Postel and Paul Mockapetris. --BenM 17:10, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Huh? I think he was agreeing with you. Or are you implicitly responding to those who want to expand DNS to "Service"? Noel 21:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • The latter. That was a generic "you," not a specific "you." There was another part of that comment which I later removed which made it more clear, but may have been interpreted poorly regarding the person who prefers Services over System. --BenM 06:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, move back to Domain Name System. JTN 03:14, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

URLs?

The section "How the DNS works in theory" uses the term URL to define domain names. URLs can contain domain names but are not the same thing.

mailto:name@somedomain

is a valid URL and has nothing to do with DNS. Matteo 08:21, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

hosts file

I think what's referred to as "the HOSTS.TXT file" should be changed to "the hosts file", considering it's most often /etc/hosts on unix-like OSes, and [last time I checked] doesn't even have the .txt extension on Win32. --Midg3t 00:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was called "HOSTS.TXT" in the pre-DNS days 25 years ago. Samboy 22:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And that bit is specific: the file that was retrieved was named HOSTS.TXT. Of course, after it was retrieved, it was renamed to whatever the local operating system required. — mendel ☎ 00:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Relevant External links were removed

On 26 Apr 2005, a lot of highly relevant external links about the DNS system were removed by 220.225.129.125, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domain_Name_System&diff=12851911&oldid=12847683 I think they should be restored, and like to receive input about this from others. -- JT 04/30/2005

Removal is appropriate, IMO -- Wikipedia is not a repository of links. If there's useful information at those sites that is relevant to the article but is not already mentioned, it should be included in the article — mendel ☎ 00:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)