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

[Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>]

Posting the new version ASAP, and having a new LC for the new version makes sense to me.

Maybe we should talk to the DNSEXT and DNSOP chairs before sending the LC to their mailing lists, to see what they think?

Margaret

On Sep 13, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Hui Deng wrote:

> Hi Margaret,
>  
> I have seen the draft updated for 04 version, this has been a not small changes, we may can make a last call again for the new draft posting across multiple working groups such as MIF, DNSEXT and DNSOP, require theirs review?
>  
> Anyway, Andrew and Keith have already made lots of significant comments about alignment with Internet DNS architecture.
>  
> -Hui
> 
>  
> > Subject: Re: [mif] Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document
> > From: [e-mail]
> > Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 08:00:09 -0400
> > CC: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > To: [e-mail]
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Brian,
> > 
> > On Sep 8, 2011, at 12:07 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > Has this document been reviewed in DNSEXT and DNSOP?
> > 
> > No, but this is a good thought... I will talk to Jari and Hui about how best to get good review of this draft by DNS experts. I'm not sure if we should just send mail to the DNSEXT and DNSOP WGs, or if we should ask for a DNS Directorate review. Jari and Hui, what do you think?
> > 
> > > If not, I would strongly recommend that before asking the AD
> > > to review it in detail. I would expect considerable discussion of
> > > the following text and its consequences:
> > > 
> > >> In deployments where multiple namespaces are present, selection of
> > >> correct route and destination and source addresses for the actual IP
> > >> connection is crucial as well, as the resolved destination's IP
> > >> addresses may be only usable on the network interface over which the
> > >> name was resolved on.
> > 
> > I think there is a lot more acceptance, now, that these sorts of deployments do exist in the real world and need to be handled properly (otherwise they cause real-world problems) than there used to be in the IETF in the past. We'll see how the discussion goes, but I'm expecting a lot less controversy on this point than we would have seen 5+ years ago.
> > 
> > Margaret
> > 
> >