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

Doug Barton <> Sat, 22 October 2011 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E7021F88B6 for <>; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.534
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BIKCDGebNhpE for <>; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9472E21F8801 for <>; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 10717 invoked by uid 399); 22 Oct 2011 18:43:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with ESMTPAM; 22 Oct 2011 18:43:01 -0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:42:56 -0700
From: Doug Barton <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111001 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Keith Moore <>
References: <COL118-W55403198A984BAAE44BA47B1F70@phx.gbl> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: undefined
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 17:32:26 -0700
Cc: "<>" <>, "<>" <>, "<>" <>, "<>" <>, "<>" <>, "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [mif] [dnsext] [DNSOP] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:43:04 -0000

On 10/21/2011 08:13, Keith Moore wrote:
> Names containing "." should not be subject to search lists.  Given a
> name like, there's no reliable way to tell whether "bar" is a
> TLD or a subdomain of something in the search list. 

I've been following this discussion, mostly in the hopes that it would
go away. :)  However since the discussion keeps circling I thought I'd
throw in my 2 cents.

1. I think we're all in agreement that dot-terminated names (e.g.,
example.) should not be subject to search lists. I personally don't have
any problems with any document mentioning that this is the expected

2. I think most of us agree that a bare label (no dots, e.g., example)
will almost certainly be subject to a search list. My suggestion would
be that the common behavior be described in a "here be dragons" format,
without attempting to be proscriptive.

3. For hostnames with a dot (although not necessarily ending in a TLD,
such as foo.example) I think it's reasonable to say that the desired
behavior is to first try to look them up "as is" without applying a
search list, and if that fails to then apply the search list; with the
same caveat as above, descriptive language for this document instead of

In regards to 3, let's say I have a domain, In my network I
have various subdomains that represent various network segments, let's
say foo, bar, and baz. Personally, I find it convenient to put
'' in the search list for all of my hosts, and then type 'ssh' and go off on my merry way. Yes, I understand that in my
simple example I could theoretically put all 3 subdomains in the search
list. Now assume that my network isn't actually that simple ...




	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)