IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Fri, 21 October 2011 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.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 CF4BB11E8096; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 2coio1NjPHS2; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from trantor.virtualized.org (trantor.virtualized.org [199.48.134.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1EE11E8091; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.5] (c-24-4-109-25.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.4.109.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: drc) by trantor.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B4431704E; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 01:19:43 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <C8398996-79B5-437E-82A5-6B869ECF8F4E@network-heretics.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:19:41 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <94C2E518-F34F-49E4-B15C-2CCCFAA96667@virtualized.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>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:07:28 -0700
Cc: mif@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, dnsext@ietf.org, pk@isoc.de, john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com, dhcwg@ietf.org, denghui02@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [mif] [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 01:19:44 -0000

On Oct 20, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> It might that IETF should consider "bare names" out of its scope, except 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 application-dependent.

Can we please not redefine what a "DNS name" is to meet a particular agenda?

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?

Regards,
-drc

v2.16.0 | Report a Bug | By Email