IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 19 October 2011 19:09 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 6EDE821F8C7F; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 bkCwLvS9dVXd; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E23CC21F8C7E; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:09:00 PDT
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 15A031B8315; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (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 0F458190065; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:08:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:08:59 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "<teemu.savolainen@nokia.com> <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>" <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document
Thread-Index: AQHMjipiaz0g2rqs70G2ngGlfgipv5WESzGAgAAfSICAABOmAA==
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:08:58 +0000
Message-ID: <D773D6AE-500C-407A-B0B5-55A035E8B904@nominum.com>
References: <COL118-W55403198A984BAAE44BA47B1F70@phx.gbl> <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE44309696203782D75@008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.com> <8B37A60F-0C55-4543-9ADB-2BA5A659B212@nominum.com> <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE4430969620378363C@008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE4430969620378363C@008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D773D6AE500C407AB0B555A035E8B904nominumcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org>, "<dnsop@ietf.org>" <dnsop@ietf.org>, "<dnsext@ietf.org>" <dnsext@ietf.org>, "<pk@isoc.de>" <pk@isoc.de>, "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "<sa.morris7@googlemail.com>" <sa.morris7@googlemail.com>, "<denghui02@hotmail.com>" <denghui02@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mif] [dhcwg] 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: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:09:01 -0000

On Oct 19, 2011, at 1:58 PM, <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com<mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>>
 <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com<mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>> wrote:
Now that you say it, we might state that not any VPN can be trusted by
default (but VPN is an example here), but e.g. a VPN Configuration Profile
could enable the setting for that particular VPN connection. If the trusted
VPN then **cks you up, then, well, trusted parties sometimes do that..

I suppose requiring the user to explicitly mark the VPN trusted would help.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email