Re: [mif] Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document

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

On 2011-09-09 12:11, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:22:17PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>> I'm quite surprised that MIF was able to get this far with the document without the issue being raised.
> 
> Have I really been so polite that this qualifies as "not raised"?  I
> apologise to everyone, then.  But I've been uneasy about this since
> early in my work on the DNS64 drafts.  I'm getting perhaps too adept
> at nose-holding.

DNS64 doesn't damage the logical structure of the namespace itself.
As soon as you admit that not all DNS servers serve the exact same
namespace, and that a host may be able to see more than one
DNS server, the total namespace cannot be guaranteed unique.
There could be two totally unrelated entries for host.example.com.
Introducing ambiguity in the DNS namespace, having already
done so in the IPv4 address space, is a very serious step indeed.

If you want a citation, see clause 4.2 in RFC 1958.

This could be fixed by a BCP describing appropriate constraints
on names that only resolve within a limited scope, I think,
but it should not be just a by-product of the draft under review.

   Brian