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

<> Wed, 22 February 2012 06:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C095721E802F for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:21:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.427
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.427 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uoV0wX-NpoPm for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:20:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DAAE21E8021 for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:20:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id q1M6Ko52004632 for <>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:20:54 +0200
Received: from ([]) by over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:20:50 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.003; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:20:49 +0100
Thread-Topic: [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document
Thread-Index: AQHMf4YJc1OWueh3WEqDYlN2BZxXYpZJU+uA
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:20:49 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <COL118-W55403198A984BAAE44BA47B1F70@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <COL118-W55403198A984BAAE44BA47B1F70@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-tituslabs-classifications-30: TLPropertyRoot=Nokia; Confidentiality=Nokia Internal Use Only; Project=None;
x-headerinfofordlp: None
x-tituslabs-classificationhash-30: VgNFIFU9Hx+/nZJb9Kg7IplYcKbXY4PV0ei3gFpNObHe+lTM1U1xbihCwzQd/31+Vpsv1JI/CghilcM/oudMLL/ZE5yjuV1btDJGeMSb+onJcY0j0cmYXXBRZznbSI/jnQ7iaw1bJWbudhmxdF6Q9GDRn/g8G32VjMBdR4x4qG84WP7vMIWhsMPxfs3oeDLiuIyam1nZt+mg34akhQjO6k2FFaxOD6vIb7VE44vUTcGYFawp3+djgvCBZy70eIY8jCUKglzUcW4f/UGRFnQEdw==
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE443096962042D7D2C008AM1MPN1051mg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Feb 2012 06:20:50.0624 (UTC) FILETIME=[1F7F0400:01CCF12A]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: Re: [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:21:02 -0000

We are 128 days past the WGLC comment deadline, and 120 days past the date when comments given during WLGC were addressed in the draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-07.

Could we get this draft either to IESG, or should we still make some updates? There’s still time before IETF#83 deadlines to do some updates, but I’d like to hear sooner rather than later.



From: [] On Behalf Of ext Hui Deng
Sent: 30. syyskuuta 2011 18:29
Subject: [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document

Dear all

Based on 1st round WG LC, the authors have received significant advice about revision and submited a new version accordingly:

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<>

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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From:<> []<mailto:[]> On Behalf Of
> ext<>
> Sent: 20. syyskuuta 2011 22:10
> To:<>
> Cc:<>
> 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
> This draft is a work item of the Multiple Interfaces Working Group of the
>       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-0 5.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 inform ation required to perform
>    informed DNS server selection decisions.
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: