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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Fri, 21 October 2011 14:05 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 894D811E8098; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.779
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.779 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 p2vjS6HGjVnp; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com (out5.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4EF11E8082; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.44]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC37E211EE; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:05:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:05:22 -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:content-transfer-encoding:message-id :references:to; s=smtpout; bh=ntspVps5aKo4yODxjI0+szf2FEo=; b=Lz a/V6hpk23qZRn2DhBOnx9wiDoWk1vZvAWNq0ryQGF3oOTBOW9R41lg8mh9Poq9zS 5Ux2+JlQ9YXHWajUbZbLwxtpx5D6vXOdE1s6R8aJ5r/7rmp7sa3QBG5hPWsYYm8A ry7gulVyn0YtULhegq/IHAO2z1G7Ab90Z+Zv7cC+U=
X-Sasl-enc: V8xt21HSkfyeN+uGMyOnlZA2xiV99+2HCQ41Q23Q2nZJ 1319205922
Received: from [192.168.1.16] (host65-16-145-177.birch.net [65.16.145.177]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 90540408BF4; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:05:18 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE44309696203784B27@008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:04:50 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <814EB5AF-16C2-4016-9D52-61183B82988C@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>
To: <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:17:34 -0700
Cc: mif@ietf.org, brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com, dnsop@ietf.org, dnsext@ietf.org, pk@isoc.de, john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com, dhcwg@ietf.org, denghui02@hotmail.com
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 14:05:24 -0000

On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:15 AM, <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com> wrote:

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

That's not how I would state it.   I think handling of "foo." is something that IETF can define, but handling of "foo" is probably better left undefined.

And honestly I don't see why handling of non-DNS names like "foo" is in scope for MIF.    

As for lookup of DNS names, results of DNS lookup on any interface should be considered valid for all interfaces. 

> 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?

Actually, it's the other way around.  "foo." is already an FQDN and shouldn't be subject to any search lists.  The behavior of lookups of "foo" is implementation dependent, but it's common practice to subject it to searching.  

Keith