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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Doug Barton wrote:

> On 10/21/2011 08:13, Keith Moore wrote:
>> Names containing "." should not be subject to search lists.  Given a
>> name like foo.bar, 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
> behavior.

agree.  however there are standard protocols for which a trailing dot in a domain name is a syntax error.

> 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.

mostly agree.   I don't think "will almost certainly be subject to a search list" is accurate, though I do think "may be subject to a search list" is reasonable.

> 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
> proscriptive.

Strongly disagree.  That would leave users without a protocol-independent way of unambiguously specifying "this is a fully-qualified domain name".

The practice of applying search lists to names with "."s in them needs to die.

Keith