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

Lawrence Conroy <> Mon, 24 October 2011 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48E5D21F8A97; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_51=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NsQIbihlDX51; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5052221F867F; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7BA9D27E2; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:34:24 +0100 (BST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EZ1aekG6CA5N; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:34:24 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC905D27D7; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:34:23 +0100 (BST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Lawrence Conroy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:34:23 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <E68B291B136EE9E8CFBF68F0@Ximines.local> <> <AFC2B32D1BE5A9E449B8D8A1@Ximines.local> <> <>
To: Doug Barton <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:24:55 -0700
Cc:,, Keith Moore <>,
Subject: Re: [mif] [dnsext] [DNSOP] 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: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:34:27 -0000

Hi there Doug, Keith, folks,
 Speaking of broken mechanisms ... how many dots? is OK is not OK

ndots strikes me as a chocolate soldier in the fire used to warm the chocolate teapot that is search lists.

At best these are context dependent (and keep IT support in business). At worst ...
 one day I WILL be arrested for tazering the bean counter (why is it always one of
 those?) who insists that "intranet" is a fine web server name useful anywhere.

[I came damn close a few times with Yankee hotel reservations accessible only via
 1-800 'phone numbers]

Speaking of interoperability -- the comment "it works for everyone here" is not
 a good sign that the solution is interoperable.

IMO, search lists and ndots are both abominations, and should not be given the oxygen of publicity.

all the best,

On 24 Oct 2011, at 21:52, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 05:16, Keith Moore wrote:
>> That's the point - search lists are not appropriate most of the time, and it's very hard for software to distinguish the cases where they are potentially appropriate from the cases when they're not, and it's not possible for software to do this in all cases.
> There's been something missing from this discussion, and I finally put
> my finger on it. TMK most stub resolvers have an option similar to this
> one from ISC's:
> ndots:n
>        sets a threshold for the number of dots which
>        must appear in a name given to res_query() (see
>        resolver(3)) before an initial absolute query
>        will be made.  The default for n is “1”, mean‐
>        ing that if there are any dots in a name, the
>        name will be tried first as an absolute name
>        before any search list elements are appended to
>        it.
> So it seems that this question is already a matter of local policy,
> which given the number and quality of the divergent views seems
> eminently reasonable. Can we move on now?