User talk:Hannigan

encyclopedic???

ICANN not believe that anyone could think that the US Department of Commerce delegated root zone file constituted an encyclopedia article. -- RHaworth 21:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you propose I put the example? The DoC doesn't publish it as far as I know, and the ICANN website is not reliable. Is there a way to enter it into the Wiki that meets community standards? Do I need to simple wrap some encyclopedic text around it? Best, a newb. -- Hannigan 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Including the whole of the file is totally unencyclopedic, especially for a file marked refresh every 30 min. What we want is an article about the file. What is it for? How is the content to be interpreted. For example we have different types of line "AX. NS NS3.AALNET.NET.", "GRDNS.ICS.FORTH.GR. A 139.91.1.1" or "DOMREG.NIC.CH. AAAA 2001:620:0:0:0:0:0:4". What does each mean? How do the machines that need it get it? You say it is not "published" but is this not part of the internet routing structure? Does it not drive the BGP? Is it not frequently accessed but by a protocol other than http?

In short, don't give us the file: explain it to us!! -- RHaworth 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, to link to this talk page, you write [[User talk:Hannigan]] not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hannigan !!! Or is there a better format to use for "Example 1"? What Example 1 in what article?? -- RHaworth 18:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. I want to store the example and then reference it _on_ Wikipedia. But I need the whole file. I'll just use the ICANN link.

Incidentally, DNS has little to do with BGP or http. Names and HTTP go together, but you can HTTP an address as well. This article is about root servers, which point servers at other resources to hand back to clients.

Thanks. --Hannigan 21:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why you need the whole file. But as you say the easy solution is to use an external link to a copy of the file elsewhere. That will keep people like me off your back. -- RHaworth 02:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I could figure out how to get the whole file on there, I could use it as a reference so that you would understand it. One, the file is historical, since it does change on occasion, second, it demonstrates just how "small" the file that controls all resolution on the Internet is, third, it has entries for each ccTLD resource for each country so that control can be demonstrated, and finally, there are policy discussions or encyclopedic interest that can be generated from the reference as well. Having it on-system seems to be more reliable than off, and at some point, a switch from reference to actual article may be possible. I am wondering if you are actually "editing" the article more so that being a worker bee on Wiki? Or perhaps there is a breakdown in the structure that a suggestion in the right place may fix?

Thanks for your discussion!

--Hannigan 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Running your own Root Name Server

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Running your own Root Name Server, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pascal.Tesson 17:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]