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

<teemu.savolainen@nokia.com> Fri, 21 October 2011 07:22 UTC

Return-Path: <teemu.savolainen@nokia.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 4072A1F0C59; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.582
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, 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 XsrjmcP6wB27; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-sa01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C55D41F0C3B; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh104.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.30]) by mgw-sa01.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p9L7LuO7002664; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:21:57 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:21:53 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-002.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.57) by NOK-am1MHUB-01.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:21:53 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.7.8]) by 008-AM1MMR1-002.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.57]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:21:52 +0200
From: <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>
To: <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [dnsext] [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document
Thread-Index: AQHMj6R+QZ795RKazUe9WQ1xF1IpB5WGZKHA
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:21:51 +0000
Message-ID: <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE44309696203784B63@008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.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> <4EA09791.8010705@gmail.com> <C8398996-79B5-437E-82A5-6B869ECF8F4E@network-heretics.com> <94C2E518-F34F-49E4-B15C-2CCCFAA96667@virtualized.org> <12477381-9F74-4C50-B576-47EE4322F6BC@network-heretics.com> <CAH1iCiqsN-R87VK3vKityPsY+NXA=0DRASYf_vmBSy8gvYwHdQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH1iCiqsN-R87VK3vKityPsY+NXA=0DRASYf_vmBSy8gvYwHdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tituslabs-classifications-30: TLPropertyRoot=Nokia; Confidentiality=Company Confidential; Project=None;
x-titus-version: 3.3.8.1
x-headerinfofordlp: None
x-tituslabs-classificationhash-30: VgNFIFU9Hx+/nZJb9Kg7IvQmQ0o/K2jquxqC2Uue5GHpzEuo3S9zNfeh3beuXC4d4U+9SoG2zegA7qMLdX6PTG17IL7pxR5S/KY/iCJNnn1c5UqLju8bmTWbhVRC5KYyRvx6Lux+omb+cjLr4ZT4xGr6EYlMoJAb4mKk7Ygo2IOCLEfvotq8eZrg90l9H1dML3IGXW5CR0VaroyKyJb6YmetiFAenF/tDgR293RVPdnMoKPAurwSeBTTqO8uNr6TcXVEvm613p4YTVwzPTjUYrSShwM2n81B2EdPx398YIM=
x-originating-ip: [10.162.93.230]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_017A_01CC8FDB.3D0BB910"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2011 07:21:53.0406 (UTC) FILETIME=[1B7631E0:01CC8FC2]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, mif@ietf.org, dnsext@ietf.org
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 07:22:03 -0000

(resending only to mailing list recipients)

Brian,

Do you agree that nodes' behavioral differences between "foo" and "foo."
names is out of the scope of this particular MIF draft?

There could perhaps be another draft, which would say that if name is "foo"
it should not be appended with search lists but "foo." might? And whatever
other differences in their handling would be, and what impacts it would have
e.g. intranet designers?

Please see also in another email my suggestion for section 4.6 text. That
text should now allow possible changes for the bare name handling while
still allowing coexistence with DNS server selection.

Best regards,

Teemu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dnsext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of ext Brian Dickson
> Sent: 21. lokakuuta 2011 06:16
> To: Keith Moore
> Cc: mif@ietf.org; dnsop@ietf.org; dnsext@ietf.org; pk@isoc.de;
> john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com; dhcwg@ietf.org;
> denghui02@hotmail.com; Brian E Carpenter
> Subject: Re: [dnsext] [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection
> document
> 
> I think we can skirt this rat-hole if we separate the two following
distinct
> cases:
> 
> Case A: "foo"
> Case B: "foo." (with terminating "dot").
> 
> Case B meets the technical requirements of a Fully Qualified Domain Name,
> structurally speaking.
> Case A does not.
> 
> Case A is a "bare name", case B is not.
> 
> If we stick to the notions of FQDN versus anything else, we can avoid
> entering the rat-hole, IMHO.
> 
> (I.e., We don't need to get into any issues over the number of labels in
an
> FQDN; an FQDN does not require treatment, special or otherwise; etc.,
etc.,)
> 
> Brian Dickson
> 
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Keith Moore <moore@network-
> heretics.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:19 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> > I wasn't trying to do so.
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> > Probably.  I'm just suggesting that trying to nail down the behavior of
such
> names is probably a rathole as well as likely to cause significant
disruption.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dnsext mailing list
> > dnsext@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
> >
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext