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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Fri, 21 October 2011 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 888B21F0C64; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.457
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.457 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.459, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 nfw8aZqjxkAq; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com (out5.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89821F0C69; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B2620AB5; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:13:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:13:53 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; s=smtpout; bh=lCO X1kCTIlP095ifCEhUWw/V1Zw=; b=jdcervDjgROLH43YBshK5JCzcGkDR2Lx1rY L1WYX01xjYjaTtvchGmev+oCzNagHTiRkrjg/eRxzKDZNk+lwMbG85oHOO5rB5W/ 8QIpWhQCpyv2QIXtAiydGATcb763ywDuta5WD2GP8ptkui6lho49wFbv4/MCRbYF Ts4bI7to=
X-Sasl-enc: bQ9eg22JollG3hR4uNW4sZJbiW43Gqc9UOPy+j63j6Yc 1319210032
Received: from [192.168.1.16] (host65-16-145-177.birch.net [65.16.145.177]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2BD84408A4E; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:13:51 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-67--547095658
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <708F3212-3C9C-4B61-AA77-EFA8F1CA5B04@nominum.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:13:24 -0400
Message-Id: <30B1AE01-0A35-48D2-91AF-46FC8B60466C@network-heretics.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> <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE44309696203784B27@008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.com> <708F3212-3C9C-4B61-AA77-EFA8F1CA5B04@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:17:34 -0700
Cc: "<mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org>, "<brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>" <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>, "<dnsop@ietf.org>" <dnsop@ietf.org>, "<dnsext@ietf.org>" <dnsext@ietf.org>, "<pk@isoc.de>" <pk@isoc.de>, "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "<denghui02@hotmail.com>" <denghui02@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mif] [DNSOP] [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 15:13:57 -0000

On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:

> On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:15 AM, <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>
>  <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com> wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> I tend to agree with others who have observed that this question is beyond the WG's core competency.  But there really is a mif question having to do with how search lists are handled.   Personally I tend to side with the crowd that believes that DNS search lists should be deprecated with extreme prejudice, but if the consensus is otherwise, I think this draft you describe does need to be written.
> 

IMO: search lists are useful, but only with "bare names" - and the behavior of those should be implementation dependent.  Trying to nail it down will break too much widespread practice.

Names containing "." should not be subject to search lists.  Given a name like foo.bar, there's no reliable way to tell whether "bar" is a TLD or a subdomain of something in the search list. 

(No, trying to look up "foo.bar" starting from the DNS root, and failing over if that lookup fails, is not sufficient, because of (a) temporary failures and (b) it still doesn't tell you what the user _meant_.  It makes much more sense to say that any name containing a "." is unambiguously an FQDN.)