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

Doug Barton <> Mon, 24 October 2011 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C945C11E8160 for <>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.952
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.952 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_51=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lacy9SWf2z9U for <>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 546F011E8146 for <>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 25785 invoked by uid 399); 24 Oct 2011 21:29:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with ESMTPAM; 24 Oct 2011 21:29:39 -0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:29:37 -0700
From: Doug Barton <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111001 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Keith Moore <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <E68B291B136EE9E8CFBF68F0@Ximines.local> <> <AFC2B32D1BE5A9E449B8D8A1@Ximines.local> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: undefined
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc:,,,, Alex Bligh <>,
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 21:36:22 -0000

On 10/24/2011 13:58, Keith Moore wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 4:52 PM, 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?
> No, because relying on "local policy" is not sufficient for interoperability.

I don't see how local resolution issues feed into interoperability here.

> I think there's a need for IETF to document why any other value than 1 is a Bad Idea, and more to the point, why it will break things.    The problem isn't entirely specific to hosts with multiple interfaces.  But given that using multiple interfaces makes the problem worse, MIF might want to take on some of the work of documenting why it will break things.

That seems to be an opinion of yours that isn't widely shared.


	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)