Re: [mif] Server selection document is "band-aid" not solution

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-11-17 15:11, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> 
> I sorry for the late comment but it has taken me a while to be able to
> put my finger on what I feel is wrong with the document (and the
> discussion in the working group)
> 
> If a node has multiple interfaces and the interfaces have different
> resolution contexts then the basic question is
> "How can the services on the node tell what resolution context an
> application wants to use ?"
> 
> Right now the "server-selection" document
> The fundamental problem we have is that OS's have a built in assumptions
> that
> a) there is only one resolution context i.e. only single /etc/resolv.conf
> 
> b) There is no way to label a process that it wants to be a part of
> certain resolution context or tell the resolution which context to use.
> 
> c) Results of resolution do not indicate which context was used.
>

These are all symptoms of a much deeper problem that we have in the
modern Internet: the notion of scope that we have, for both names
and addresses, is broken, and inconsistent with the real world.
I've been trying to get people interested in this for a while,
e.g. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-referral-ps

There's actually more explicit discussion of scope in an even
older draft, most of which is OBE:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-grobj-reqts-00#section-2

However, I don't believe MIF can be expected to solve this problem,
and therefore the server selection draft seems to be the best
that MIF can do.

    Brian