[mif] New rev of MIF DNS server selection document

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi all,



Thank you for all the discussions.



I have submitted -07 version with the following changes:

-          Complete removal of section 4.6 about DNS search list option handling. This topic clearly is something that is too big for this draft to cover and also seems to be mostly out of the scope of this draft. If there some day will be a new draft that addresses various issues with DNS search lists, it might also discuss the issues related to MIF

-          Security additions, namely the following two additions:

o   “In some occasions an interface may be considered trusted only if explicitly configured to be trusted.”

o   “An implementation may not be able to determine trust levels without explicit configuration provided by user or administrator.  Therefore, for example, an implementation may not by default trust configuration received even over VPN interfaces.”

-          DHCPv4 option structure clarification:

o   Possibility to have multiple options that are concatenated as described in RFC3396

o   Removal of “payload len” field



I now think that after these improvements this is even more ready to go towards IESGJ



I-D itself: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-07.txt



Diff to -06:  http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-07



Best regards,



                Teemu



From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Savolainen Teemu (Nokia-CTO/Tampere)
Sent: 19. lokakuuta 2011 09:43
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document



Hi all,



This second WGLC resulted in very few comments. In the DHC WG we discussed about DHCPv4 option structure and in MIF there was a comment about document-internal reference bug.



I have now uploaded a version six that contains:

-          Fixes to the DHCPv4 option structure

-          Highlighting stricter length limitation in case of DHCPv4 option

-          Fix to the reference bug

-          Small fixes to missing DHCPv4 considerations in sections 4.5 and 4.6.



Please see diff: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-06



If no further comments, I think this document is ready to go to the IESG.



Thank you,



                Teemu





From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]]<mailto:[mailto:[e-mail]]> On Behalf Of ext Hui Deng
Sent: 30. syyskuuta 2011 18:29
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document



Dear all

Based on 1st round WG LC, the authors have received significant advice about revision and submited a new version accordingly:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-05.txt

And we plan to issue a second round WG LC, and cc to DHCWG, DNSEXT, DNSOP related working groups, please DNSEXT/DNSOP chairs help to forward to the MLs since I may not subscribe to them.

This is a 2 weeks with little extension LC, it will finish on October 17,
Please send substantive review and editorial comments to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Thanks a lot for youre view
Best regards,

Margaret and Hui



Below are Teemu's writeup about the revision:

I uploaded -05 update so that next comments would take into account changes
I already did based on discussions with Murray (as was copied to this list).
The biggest clarifications related to how DNS queries are sent to different
servers and when all servers are waited for answers (if reply is not
validated) and when not. I.e. this text:
--
  A node SHALL send requests to DNS servers in the order defined by the
  priority list until an acceptable reply is received, all replies are
  received, or a time out occurs.  In the case of a requested name
  matching to a specific domain or network rule accepted from any
  interface, a DNSSEC-aware resolver MUST NOT proceed with a reply that
  cannot be validated using DNSSEC until all DNS servers on the
  priority list have been contacted or timed out.  This protects
  against possible redirection attacks.  In the case of the requested
  name not matching to any specific domain or network, first received
  response from any DNS server MAY be considered acceptable.  A DNSSEC-
  aware node MAY always contact all DNS server in an attempt to receive
  a response that can be validated, but contacting all DNS servers is
  not mandated for the default case as in some deployments that would
  consume excess resources.
--
       Teemu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]]<mailto:[mailto:[e-mail]]> On Behalf Of
> ext [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Sent: 20. syyskuuta 2011 22:10
> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-05.txt
- 显示引用文字 -
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Multiple Interfaces Working Group of the
> IETF.
>
>       Title           : Improved DNS Server Selection for Multi-Interfaced
> Nodes
>       Author(s)       : Teemu Savolainen
>                           Jun-ya Kato
>                           Ted Lemon
>       Filename        : draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-0 5.txt
>       Pages           : 26
>       Date            : 2011-09-20
>
>    A multi-interfaced node is connected to multiple networks, some of
>    which may be utilizing private DNS namespaces.  A node commonly
>    receives DNS server configuration information from all connected
>    networks.  Some of the DNS servers may have information about
>    namespaces other servers do not have.  When a multi-interfaced node
>    needs to utilize DNS, the node has to choose which of the servers to
>    contact to.  This document describes DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 option that
>    can be used to configure nodes with inform ation required to perform
>    informed DNS server selection decisions.
>
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-05.txt