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

Keith Moore <> Mon, 24 October 2011 10:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0AE21F8BDB; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 03:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.381
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.381 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.382, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6eU3CmqIhTcs; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 03:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D054B21F8BD8; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 03:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.mail.srv.osa []) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1063205F2; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:53:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:53:07 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id :references:to; s=smtpout; bh=XxqCXQNflGGfqp26mZ9XFd1o+Mk=; b=GW qiDNEXydGYg5SKe5/z9GL+FpG500FnR8qaqdYUK3zL4FOqaHE/b0yWbZGWrfMPdN rjfpf+mFSo4XOWOGBtwn/5BhX7jMcVH/Pn6QW6ql3B2ONUFJO+R1Yz/eFQqEh6K3 mlrRCvydWtjfyTCGGBTuPy8STt11nsOjP3JES22ls=
X-Sasl-enc: GZQd13ftozDfZsaK5kHKyuE49V5sXYB6/QLlNAr2GSkz 1319453587
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E3DB24833A2; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:53:05 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Keith Moore <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:53:05 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 03:58:16 -0700
Subject: Re: [mif] [DNSOP] [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: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:53:10 -0000

On Oct 24, 2011, at 2:08 AM, wrote:

>>> I can't agree with this statement.  As others have said, the practice of using a search list to allow 'ssh' to reach '' isn't going anywhere, and there are a lot of people that make extensive use of the convenience.
>> It needs to die because it's fundamentally broken.   Vanity TLDs will only make it worse.   I understand that there are sites that use it and people who are accustomed to it.   I don't pretend that we can stop them.   We can, however, explain the negative consequences of doing this (some of which might be specific to systems with multiple interfaces), and recommend that they transition away from that practice.   And recommendations for systems with multiple interfaces can be chosen in such a way as to allow search lists to break even more.
> I routinely use short names (and thus search lists) in my work. I am
> aware of vanity domains, and of RFC 1535. Have I stopped using short
> names and search lists? No, the convenience is just too great.
> In trying to stop the use of short names and search lists I believe
> you're trying to fight human nature. It's a waste of time, and unlikely
> to be productive.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to forbid the use of search lists with "bare" (single-label) names.   I'm just pointing out that for the vast majority of the contexts in which domain names are used, the expectation is that a domain name that contains a "." is fully-qualified.  The need for domain names to behave consistently from one host to another and one application to another is much, much more important, than the need to apply search lists to queries of domain names that contain "."s.