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

SM <> Thu, 20 October 2011 08:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2717021F8B23; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.418
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.181, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UI5RY41Z1ijk; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C69F421F8B25; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) by (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p9K8M9SL023882; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1319098935; bh=N3Dmm0lWJa/6t0ZCU0mtRthZuL/xuzuCCgy/aU4giNQ=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=cx/COIgK9lBuxWjV5XuWHWlxxnPbqSrYUVIF+pMj4MBkjWiYhe1GPFUzydELeuvSb 32X+xmJj4Z+IgQUKUbNMSYM7pOSWVrnLdOwksl2+B+RxYqNIOiPWGWVcF2pgkrRCKE cvUF9gEK4giQNYNAJGBLtWp4ZEkQJFfB+knDAa7g=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1319098935; bh=N3Dmm0lWJa/6t0ZCU0mtRthZuL/xuzuCCgy/aU4giNQ=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=YIbV39CPRK/5uGvGipxguGj3vPhgOpwVgZNNvgNgKp5cZlOvGhw6QfFFIU4UiAldK iD3ov+2hbJsPb7DXBFqPgdqloKg/5hGuhMQ8OTKOMAdyD6IM/hNu5MEGl4E1hso2zb P+LC0cIqDZ8SLOZq5lx0BIx52brlBSawnDpjkbwU=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:21:28 -0700
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE44309696203783EE0@008-AM1MPN1-037.m>
References: <COL118-W55403198A984BAAE44BA47B1F70@phx.gbl> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:44:27 -0700
Subject: Re: [mif] [dnsext] 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: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:22:20 -0000

Hi Teemu,

[message trimmed to MIF and DNSEXT]

At 00:01 20-10-2011, wrote:
>Okay, I understand there is no clear consensus yet how these single label
>names should be handled by the resolvers at the first place? Should resolver

Section 4.6 discusses about domain search lists.  It's not DNS search 
lists.  From RFC 3646 (it's not a normative reference in the draft):

  "Resolve a name containing no dots by appending with the searchlist
   right away, but once again, no implicit searchlists should be

>first treat them as pre-DNS hostnames, then as DNS hostnames, and then try

What's pre-DNS hostnames?

>search list? The DNS server selection logic would be applied already when
>resolving single label name, i.e. the network could provide a single label
>domain "brand" in the domains list.

Do you want to make domain "brands" your problem?

 From Section 7:

   "Private namespaces MUST be globally unique in order to keep DNS
    unambiguous and henceforth avoiding caching related issues and
    destination selection problems (see Section 2.3).  Exceptions to this
    rule are domains utilized for local name resolution (such as .local)."

How can the requirement for global uniqueness of anmespace be met?  I 
found a discussion of a unique name space in RFC 2826 but it is only 
for the public name space.  As there is an exception to the 
requirement, it is no longer a MUST.