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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 20 October 2011 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 35F4F1F0C53; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.359
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.240, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 DlSfIPvfBPIJ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC241F0C45; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eyg24 with SMTP id 24so3550333eyg.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=BAeL1KQxui7l8vQAhsztSwZSRk+wxJ5NyURdFer+LNg=; b=qTtgY1y4hVghqupw1YTKZ9PTT5fzguwM37w22g7MWcPYkA7bG3kdTrKVgkoL+yTey4 j4agKFOLbDbitTEoCExF7wOQFyaS6J0Y/07LIfavyBiA8M2+FAn7uyevwBw/B/Qewz0o yGnoxx4jnvxFVpEQcnI3mtDsaVBnsTNHukJmE=
Received: by 10.223.58.83 with SMTP id f19mr20388590fah.36.1319147421132; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.251.219]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a1sm18056250fab.4.2011.10.20.14.50.14 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4EA09791.8010705@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:50:09 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com
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>
In-Reply-To: <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE44309696203783EE0@008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:50:25 -0000

Teemu,

I don't believe this is a topic where consensus in MIF is very relevant.
It needs to be decided in a much wider community rather than as a subsidiary
question in a MIF document. I suggest leaving it FFS (for further study)
in MIF.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2011-10-20 20:01, teemu.savolainen@nokia.com wrote:
> Hi Ray,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ext Ray Bellis [mailto:Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk]
>> Sent: 19. lokakuuta 2011 13:40
>> To: Savolainen Teemu (Nokia-CTO/Tampere)
>> Cc: <denghui02@hotmail.com>om>; <mif@ietf.org>rg>; <dnsext@ietf.org>rg>;
>> <dnsop@ietf.org>rg>; <dhcwg@ietf.org>rg>; <pk@isoc.de>de>;
>> <john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com>
>> Subject: Re: [dnsext] [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection
>> document
>>
>> I have concerns about §4.6:
>>
>> "A bare name (a name without any dots) MUST be first treated as a pre-
> DNS
>> hostname, and only after that the name SHALL be appended with  domain
>> information and described DNS server selection logic be  utilized."
>>
>> When new gTLDs are introduced it is likely for brand-name gTLDs that they
>> will wish to use bare names in the DNS (i.e. a single label hostname) for
> their
>> primary web sites.
>>
>> Hence bare names may become much more frequently used as DNS names,
>> and §4.6 wouldn't permit those to work unless '.' is also in the suffix
> list.
>> I'd like to hear the authors' thoughts on these.  I'm not sure that this
> draft
>> necessarily needs any significant changes - it may only require changes to
>> ensure that bare names are also considered as potential DNS names in their
>> own right.
> 
> 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
> first treat them as pre-DNS hostnames, then as DNS hostnames, and then try
> 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.
> 
> Maybe section 4.6 could be like this, perhaps (changes in second paragraph
> and title)?
> --
> 4.6.  Interactions with DNS search lists and single label hostnames
> 
>    A node may be configured with DNS search list by DHCPv6
>    OPTION_DOMAIN_LIST [RFC3646] or DHCPv4 Domain Search Option
>    [RFC3397].
> 
>    A bare name (a name without any dots) MUST be first treated as a pre-
>    DNS hostname, after which resolution of the name SHALL be attempted
>    with DNS, and as a last resort the name SHALL be appended with
>    domain information. DNS server selection logic SHALL be 
>    utilized for both of the latter two DNS using methods.
> 
>    Resolution for the name containing any dots SHOULD first be attempted
>    with DNS servers of all interfaces.  Only if the resolution fails the
>    node SHOULD append the name with search list domain(s) and then again
>    utilize improved DNS server selection algorithm to decide which DNS
>    server(s) to contact.
> --
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 	Teemu
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif