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

<teemu.savolainen@nokia.com> Fri, 21 October 2011 07:15 UTC

Return-Path: <teemu.savolainen@nokia.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 8D95A11E80A1; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 8JFbRmyWmsd8; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-sa02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C6711E808C; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh105.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.31]) by mgw-sa02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p9L7F7ca025097; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:15:07 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.8]) by vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:15:06 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-003.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.58) by NOK-AM1MHUB-04.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:15:06 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.7.8]) by 008-AM1MMR1-003.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.58]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:15:05 +0200
From: <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>
To: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif] [dnsext] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document
Thread-Index: AQHMj3JGB7FreQH6+EqCg+ltMTYsr5WGYYlQ
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:15:05 +0000
Message-ID: <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE44309696203784B1F@008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.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>
In-Reply-To: <4EA09791.8010705@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tituslabs-classifications-30: TLPropertyRoot=Nokia; Confidentiality=Company Confidential; Project=None;
x-titus-version: 3.3.8.1
x-headerinfofordlp: None
x-tituslabs-classificationhash-30: VgNFIFU9Hx+/nZJb9Kg7IleTS5gKgr+JhCehPOzQb7X8VPIDGtFQ+zxfOgeaBUZsOG8Ek7lD2xu5WHF5/rxKyBmC4Zgoz9lY65iVD+EwKfx/HOyCbcbCouTzciSIqgIMf/5bLh0Sai/jE6sG24Xx+7Vb5YLSzlGNh/xlWFKXjhG/VugZS7r2MiqJJ+wJiYnj7oW0F1q2Pewb5bJXqVC5toWbFgVuespx3qoYFmYIO7yzifaaSr9b380ixgq8cDxL9AfCqPWq32/ZgZAi48Q3WSxOadDP3x3m22zqpSDkV30=
x-originating-ip: [10.162.93.230]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0164_01CC8FDA.4BCA8DB0"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2011 07:15:06.0851 (UTC) FILETIME=[2922D330:01CC8FC1]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: mif@ietf.org, 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 07:15:16 -0000

Brian,

Would the following text be then ok? Please note I changed the domain addition from SHOULD to MAY, if there is going to be attempt to deprecate/redefine/update search list logics. Or do you think it should remain SHOULD?
--
4.6.  Interactions with DNS search lists

   A node may be configured with DNS search list via DHCPv6
   OPTION_DOMAIN_LIST [RFC3646] or via DHCPv4 Domain Search Option
   [RFC3397].

   A bare name (a name without any dots) MUST be first treated as a pre-
   DNS hostname or handled by other means that, as of this writing, are
   under discussion in the IETF and that are out of the scope of this
   document.  If the bare name resolution fails, the name MAY then be
   appended with the domain information.  If the bare name is appended
   with the domain information the described DNS server selection logic
   SHALL be utilized for the resulting name.

   Resolution for the name containing any dots SHOULD first be attempted
   with DNS servers of all interfaces.  Only if the resolution fails the
   node MAY append the name with search list domain(s) and then again
   utilize improved DNS server selection algorithm to decide which DNS
   server(s) to contact.
--

Best regards,

	Teemu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
> Sent: 21. lokakuuta 2011 00:50
> To: Savolainen Teemu (Nokia-CTO/Tampere)
> Cc: Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; mif@ietf.org; 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
> 
> Teemu,
> 
> I don't believe this is a topic where consensus in MIF is very relevant.
> It needs to be decided in a much wider community rather than as a subsidiary
> question in a MIF document. I suggest leaving it FFS (for further study) in MIF.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 2011-10-20 20:01, teemu.savolainen@nokia.com wrote:
> > Hi Ray,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ext Ray Bellis [mailto:Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk]
> >> Sent: 19. lokakuuta 2011 13:40
> >> To: Savolainen Teemu (Nokia-CTO/Tampere)
> >> Cc: <denghui02@hotmail.com>om>; <mif@ietf.org>rg>; <dnsext@ietf.org>rg>;
> >> <dnsop@ietf.org>rg>; <dhcwg@ietf.org>rg>; <pk@isoc.de>de>;
> >> <john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [dnsext] [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server
> >> selection document
> >>
> >> I have concerns about §4.6:
> >>
> >> "A bare name (a name without any dots) MUST be first treated as a
> >> pre-
> > DNS
> >> hostname, and only after that the name SHALL be appended with  domain
> >> information and described DNS server selection logic be  utilized."
> >>
> >> When new gTLDs are introduced it is likely for brand-name gTLDs that
> >> they will wish to use bare names in the DNS (i.e. a single label
> >> hostname) for
> > their
> >> primary web sites.
> >>
> >> Hence bare names may become much more frequently used as DNS
> names,
> >> and §4.6 wouldn't permit those to work unless '.' is also in the
> >> suffix
> > list.
> >> I'd like to hear the authors' thoughts on these.  I'm not sure that
> >> this
> > draft
> >> necessarily needs any significant changes - it may only require
> >> changes to ensure that bare names are also considered as potential
> >> DNS names in their own right.
> >
> > Okay, I understand there is no clear consensus yet how these single
> > label names should be handled by the resolvers at the first place?
> > Should resolver first treat them as pre-DNS hostnames, then as DNS
> > hostnames, and then try search list? The DNS server selection logic
> > would be applied already when resolving single label name, i.e. the
> > network could provide a single label domain "brand" in the domains list.
> >
> > Maybe section 4.6 could be like this, perhaps (changes in second
> > paragraph and title)?
> > --
> > 4.6.  Interactions with DNS search lists and single label hostnames
> >
> >    A node may be configured with DNS search list by DHCPv6
> >    OPTION_DOMAIN_LIST [RFC3646] or DHCPv4 Domain Search Option
> >    [RFC3397].
> >
> >    A bare name (a name without any dots) MUST be first treated as a pre-
> >    DNS hostname, after which resolution of the name SHALL be attempted
> >    with DNS, and as a last resort the name SHALL be appended with
> >    domain information. DNS server selection logic SHALL be
> >    utilized for both of the latter two DNS using methods.
> >
> >    Resolution for the name containing any dots SHOULD first be attempted
> >    with DNS servers of all interfaces.  Only if the resolution fails the
> >    node SHOULD append the name with search list domain(s) and then again
> >    utilize improved DNS server selection algorithm to decide which DNS
> >    server(s) to contact.
> > --
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > 	Teemu
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mif mailing list
> > mif@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif