On the Nethserver 8 migration page here:
https://ns8.nethserver.org/en/latest/migration.html#migration-section
Is the word, “bound” correct in this statement:
Bear in mind that NS7 must be able to access the IP address where Samba is bound
Or should it be, “…where Samba is found” ?
You can bind samba to an IP address:
OK, then I would suggest it would be a bit easier to comprehend if it was changed to:
Bear in mind that NS7 must be able to access the IP address to which the Samba account provider is bound.
What about this one:
“Bear in mind that NS7 must be able to access the IP address the Samba account provider is bound to.”
I’m no native English speaker, to me all these options sound correct. 
There are some threads about this topic:
Hi
As a native english speaker, and as one working in IT, the use of the term bind to / bound is fairly clear.
And I’m also familiar with BIND (Berkeley Internet Naming Daemon, usually shortened as BIND in caps), the most used DNS server software on the Internet.
And yes, even BIND can be “bound”! 
It uses the same conventions as samba in terminology, as the service can listen to all IPs, but can be specifically be “bound” to specific IP(s).
My point is: english usage of bind / bound to is common in these use cases, if in doubt, compare eg to the RFCs or Wikipedia!
My 2 cents
Andy
PS:
Where refers to a “place”, which is one of several…
I am perfectly comfortable with using the term, “bound”. My suggested wording avoided putting “to” at the end of a sentence, which is a rule I was taught in school. But just now checking, modern style guides jettison that rule, so I’m good with @mrmarkuz’s version.
But part of my interest in this is that as somebody that started with SMEServer about 20 years ago, and since pretty early, a Nethserver user, I an a big fan of what you guys are doing, and of the direction you guys are taking with Nethserver 8. I am not your typical user. I use it as a home router, for an empty nest two-person household. The only time I use a Linux command line is when I am trying to do something with Nethserver. The few times I have done a fresh install, occasionally I ran into some weirdness that meant the install didn’t go as planned and I had to fiddle with things (the most recent time went flawlessly). Moving to a container cluster is a pretty big step. I look at the documentation and think, how will this be read by somebody that isn’t in IT? I have recommended Netserver to a lot of people. A week ago, I was talking to a colleague that lives in rural Texas, who complains about Google Fiber unreliability, and was expectantly hoping his Starlink dish arrived that day. How, I asked, are you going to load-balance the two? He didn’t have a solution, so was delighted to hear about Nethserver. This guy is actually pretty IT-literate. He is a retired (age 45) US Army Special Forces officer, who had to set up networks in the middle of nowhere. But he isn’t up on the latest container concepts of clusters, pods and containers. There is great merit in not necessarily dumbing down the documentation, but making sure where possible it is both unambiguous, and written in a way so that people only need to know a minimum about any of the underlying technologies that make it all work.
Thanks for pointing it out, I’ve committed the suggestion: samba: minor rewording · NethServer/ns8-docs@3815764 · GitHub!
Thanks for pointing it out and don’t stop to suggest Nethserver to your friends we need to expand the community