IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] DNS selection with HE-MIF

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 04 February 2013 13:56 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 663F221F8682 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 05:56:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.563
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o68tGKqF64lr for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 05:56:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E06D221F84FC for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 05:56:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUQ++EZtvPNlvSKjO7E2n1TqOehfnjd2D@postini.com; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 05:56:33 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 5FBB41B8446 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 05:56:33 -0800 (PST)
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 52B6C190043; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 05:56:33 -0800 (PST) (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 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 05:56:33 -0800
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif] DNS selection with HE-MIF
Thread-Index: AQHOAhiC0CZRnojC20SeBNCskG9mTphowXmAgAFJyQCAADWJAA==
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:56:32 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63074747D7F7@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <CAM+vMERak2vAoYFeSLRep2xjpm480qPjutyv4-tV=KtU0XO=fw@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630747479BA9@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAM+vMETvE==qUZO2_rhyUB+=ChUR4a9CoTCF+q=gBL2cRA+0UA@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63074747BB1E@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAM+vMER=CPNpXTcrqOpGqEaH+GpA81pyH_D3Hja+1jQqNTNxqw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM+vMER=CPNpXTcrqOpGqEaH+GpA81pyH_D3Hja+1jQqNTNxqw@mail.gmail.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: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <35DD9E9E06335846AF25B425030B3F30@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: mif <mif@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension <draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] DNS selection with HE-MIF
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: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:56:34 -0000

On Feb 4, 2013, at 5:44 AM, GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> wrote:
> Backing to the target of this thread, we intent to describe
> issues within HE-MIF context. For issues in general and concrete
> recommendations, would it make sense to draft new I-D?

No.   The point of HE-MIF is to solve the problem.   So not talking about the full problem in the HE-MIF solution means that we're producing something that's probably harmful.

It sounds like you think there's some value to doing DNS queries within one provisioning domain, and then using the results in the other provisioning domain.   Can you explain why?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email