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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Fri, 21 October 2011 11:30 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 0A88E21F8B57; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.567
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 erbvr9Lt53+v; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2165E21F8B56; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80A76C941E; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:30:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:6233:4bff:fe01:7585]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CDDF5216C6B; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:30:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0653615B8AA7; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:30:08 +1100 (EST)
To: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <COL118-W55403198A984BAAE44BA47B1F70@phx.gbl> <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE44309696203782D75@008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.com> <121DABD1-65E8-4275-8471-9FA38D25C434@nominet.org.uk> <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE44309696203783EE0@008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.com> <4EA09791.8010705@gmail.com> <C8398996-79B5-437E-82A5-6B869ECF8F4E@network-heretics.com> <94C2E518-F34F-49E4-B15C-2CCCFAA96667@virtualized.org> <12477381-9F74-4C50-B576-47EE4322F6BC@network-heretics.com> <CAH1iCiqsN-R87VK3vKityPsY+NXA=0DRASYf_vmBSy8gvYwHdQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:15:32 EDT." <CAH1iCiqsN-R87VK3vKityPsY+NXA=0DRASYf_vmBSy8gvYwHdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:30:08 +1100
Message-Id: <20111021113008.0653615B8AA7@drugs.dv.isc.org>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:17:34 -0700
Cc: mif@ietf.org, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, dnsop@ietf.org, dnsext@ietf.org, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>, pk@isoc.de, dhcwg@ietf.org, denghui02@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [mif] [DNSOP] [dnsext] 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, 21 Oct 2011 11:30:25 -0000

In message <CAH1iCiqsN-R87VK3vKityPsY+NXA=0DRASYf_vmBSy8gvYwHdQ@mail.gmail.com>
, Brian Dickson writes:
> I think we can skirt this rat-hole if we separate the two following
> distinct cases:
> 
> Case A: "foo"
> Case B: "foo." (with terminating "dot").
> 
> Case B meets the technical requirements of a Fully Qualified Domain
> Name, structurally speaking.
> Case A does not.
>
> Case A is a "bare name", case B is not.
> 
> If we stick to the notions of FQDN versus anything else, we can avoid
> entering the rat-hole, IMHO.
> 
> (I.e., We don't need to get into any issues over the number of labels
> in an FQDN; an FQDN does not require treatment, special or otherwise;
> etc., etc.,)

A domain style hostname have periods *seperating* labels.  RFC 952.
 
> Brian Dickson
> 
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> w=
> rote:
> >
> > On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:19 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 20, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> >>> It might that IETF should consider "bare names" out of its scope, excep=
> t perhaps to say that they're not DNS names, they don't have to necessarily=
>  be mappable to DNS names, and that their use and behavior is host and appl=
> ication-dependent.
> >>
> >> Can we please not redefine what a "DNS name" is to meet a particular age=
> nda?
> >
> > I wasn't trying to do so.
> >
> >> Isn't it sufficient to say a 'bare name' does not conform to a hostname =
> as defined in RFC 952 and modified by RFCs 1122?
> >
> > Probably. =A0I'm just suggesting that trying to nail down the behavior of=
>  such names is probably a rathole as well as likely to cause significant di=
> sruption.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dnsext mailing list
> > dnsext@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
> >
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org