IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] Server selection document is "band-aid" not solution

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 17 November 2011 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 64D9E11E80D9 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:37:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.567
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 QG3LTG+WXWP6 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:37:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og114.obsmtp.com (exprod7og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D8B11E809C for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob114.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTsVwn7SseQsFtKk+o1SiB1uZBWLAfnly@postini.com; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:37:51 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CFD41B827C for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E348319005D; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:37:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:37:51 -0800
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif] Server selection document is "band-aid" not solution
Thread-Index: AQHMpM8ZeOJMqkjpCkunz3mHScTfw5WxD2cA//98ReyAAIe9gP//hMrwgAD/fAD///A+ig==
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:37:50 +0000
Message-ID: <17DF2079-601E-4F84-8F0A-20ECF9FF1366@nominum.com>
References: <4EC46D52.8030909@ogud.com>, <DB9F0066-1B81-4CC6-BCE3-2DE103558220@network-heretics.com> <23E1BB1B-75C8-45E9-8CA3-2E3DC9B6DBC6@nominum.com>, <0B785F0F-F131-4C06-8B62-418B051EE79C@network-heretics.com> <B9CEF7F8-92E1-4D87-A548-BEEEA103EBC1@nominum.com>, <AF6E80F3-54DD-4DAF-B38B-47A5B18B469E@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <AF6E80F3-54DD-4DAF-B38B-47A5B18B469E@network-heretics.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] Server selection document is "band-aid" not solution
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, 17 Nov 2011 20:37:54 -0000

On Nov 17, 2011, at 9:34 PM, "Keith Moore" <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
>> Right, so that's the uniform namespace assumption.   But if you have two routers querying two different sets of servers, this is a non-issue.
> 
> Actually, that's not even true.  And to the extent it is true, that is an implementation artifact. 

Wow, I don't know where my brain was just then.   I meant "resolvers," not "routers."

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email