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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Teemu,

On 2011-09-08 18:16, [e-mail] wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> Thank you for review. I agree it is a good idea to consult those WGs (and
> DHC as well I suppose), but what makes you so concerned of this text:
> 
>>>    In deployments where multiple namespaces are present, selection of
>>>    correct route and destination and source addresses for the actual IP
>>>    connection is crucial as well, as the resolved destination's IP
>>>    addresses may be only usable on the network interface over which the
>>>    name was resolved on.
> 
> I wrote that as I thought it would be useful to talk a little about bigger
> picture of some deployments (like in the demo we had few IETFs back -
> without presence of DHCPv6 more specific route options the system would not
> have worked properly) .. but if that text creates an unwanted link or
> dependency or confusion, I think we can drop the text just as well and focus
> on the document just to the new options and leave this kind of additional
> system-level consideration out of the doc.

As Andrew pointed out, the draft starts

   "...from the premise that operators sometimes include private
    namespaces in the answers they provide from DNS servers, and that
    those private namespaces are at least as useful to clients as the
    answers from the public DNS."

I believe that you will discover during IETF LC that many people have
strong feelings about this premise; as Andrew implied, conceptually
the DNS is a unified global namespace. This draft is a backdoor
way of legitimising an ambiguous namespace. I don't think that will
have an easy time in IETF LC, especially if it is dropped as a surprise
into the DNS community. It's your choice, but I would suggest that
exposing it to the DNS WGs now would be a smart move.

It goes further. The IETF has a longstanding issue with technology
that encourages walled gardens. See for example RFC 3002. I think
there will be quite some discussion, and this will definitely
happen even if you try to remove the "system-level" considerations,
because they are strongly implied anyway.

Personally I'm not sure what I think about this, but it needs
to be discussed in the community IMHO.

    Brian