[mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document

Hui Deng <denghui02@hotmail.com> Fri, 30 September 2011 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <denghui02@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6881321F8C49; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ozse7vX1UZyG; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from col0-omc2-s3.col0.hotmail.com (col0-omc2-s3.col0.hotmail.com [65.55.34.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F10721F8BDB; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from COL118-W55 ([65.55.34.73]) by col0-omc2-s3.col0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:29:18 -0700
Message-ID: <COL118-W55403198A984BAAE44BA47B1F70@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_bcee45fa-b601-421d-9227-642c3b85b5f8_"
X-Originating-IP: [117.136.0.1]
From: Hui Deng <denghui02@hotmail.com>
To: <mif@ietf.org>, <dnsext@ietf.org>, <dnsop@ietf.org>, <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 23:29:18 +0800
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Sep 2011 15:29:18.0255 (UTC) FILETIME=[B81343F0:01CC7F85]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:28:17 -0700
Cc: pk@isoc.de, john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com, sa.morris7@googlemail.com
Subject: [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:26:25 -0000

Dear all
 
Based on 1st round WG LC, the authors have received significant advice about revision and submited a new version accordingly:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-05.txt
 
And we plan to issue a second round WG LC, and cc to DHCWG, DNSEXT, DNSOP related working groups, please DNSEXT/DNSOP chairs help to forward to the MLs since I may not subscribe to them.
 
This is a 2 weeks with little extension LC, it will finish on October 17,
Please send substantive review and editorial comments to mif@ietf.org
 
Thanks a lot for youre view
Best regards,
 
Margaret and Hui
 
 
 
Below are Teemu's writeup about the revision:
 
I uploaded -05 update so that next comments would take into account changes
I already did based on discussions with Murray (as was copied to this list).
The biggest clarifications related to how DNS queries are sent to different
servers and when all servers are waited for answers (if reply is not
validated) and when not. I.e. this text:
--
  A node SHALL send requests to DNS servers in the order defined by the
  priority list until an acceptable reply is received, all replies are
  received, or a time out occurs.  In the case of a requested name
  matching to a specific domain or network rule accepted from any
  interface, a DNSSEC-aware resolver MUST NOT proceed with a reply that
  cannot be validated using DNSSEC until all DNS servers on the
  priority list have been contacted or timed out.  This protects
  against possible redirection attacks.  In the case of the requested
  name not matching to any specific domain or network, first received
  response from any DNS server MAY be considered acceptable.  A DNSSEC-
  aware node MAY always contact all DNS server in an attempt to receive
  a response that can be validated, but contacting all DNS servers is
  not mandated for the default case as in some deployments that would
  consume excess resources.
--
       Teemu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mif-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> ext internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: 20. syyskuuta 2011 22:10
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: mif@ietf.org
> Subject: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-05.txt
- 显示引用文字 -
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Multiple Interfaces Working Group of the
> IETF.
>
>       Title           : Improved DNS Server Selection for Multi-Interfaced
> Nodes
>       Author(s)       : Teemu Savolainen
>                           Jun-ya Kato
>                           Ted Lemon
>       Filename        : draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-05.txt
>       Pages           : 26
>       Date            : 2011-09-20
>
>    A multi-interfaced node is connected to multiple networks, some of
>    which may be utilizing private DNS namespaces.  A node commonly
>    receives DNS server configuration information from all connected
>    networks.  Some of the DNS servers may have information about
>    namespaces other servers do not have.  When a multi-interfaced node
>    needs to utilize DNS, the node has to choose which of the servers to
>    contact to.  This document describes DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 option that
>    can be used to configure nodes with information required to perform
>    informed DNS server selection decisions.
>
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-05.txt