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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Sat, 22 October 2011 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 63A0C21F85B9; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:21:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.420, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 LiNvaQlA53FK; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com (out5.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE2221F85AE; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C55204B3; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:21:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.161]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:21:29 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id :references:to; s=smtpout; bh=OYf4hyQkCqr26hQ3ulZWEawjd8k=; b=hI EBRptIVlofYveBd0pH/3t6+bVz/VR2ZibRmXuuCqGArgPF9AEqCOBxOIXn8Nc5yW ZxbBtNKGvp+hh0ezBx3LH0i0nYTOowl/bkFIF58cF1E1Tm6ZfekWBG9n1o6ZDiGw w1YT/xKt00q9SlhzMYHpyrb3QJ5h4CI/VPKQ7sOAc=
X-Sasl-enc: MHQtqGbQzFJaAEuw0+prAzhI2zEDgD0oFib6Qk2xscXw 1319311289
Received: from [192.168.1.16] (host65-16-145-177.birch.net [65.16.145.177]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DDFCC483363; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:21:27 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EA30EB0.6080605@dougbarton.us>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:21:00 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F2045A70-6314-41CF-AC3C-01F1F1ECF84C@network-heretics.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> <C8398996-79B5-437E-82A5-6B869ECF8F4E@network-heretics.com> <94C2E518-F34F-49E4-B15C-2CCCFAA96667@virtualized.org> <12477381-9F74-4C50-B576-47EE4322F6BC@network-heretics.com> <CAH1iCiqsN-R87VK3vKityPsY+NXA=0DRASYf_vmBSy8gvYwHdQ@mail.gmail.com> <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE44309696203784B27@008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.com> <708F3212-3C9C-4B61-AA77-EFA8F1CA5B04@nominum.com> <30B1AE01-0A35-48D2-91AF-46FC8B60466C@network-heretics.com> <4EA30EB0.6080605@dougbarton.us>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "<mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org>, "<dnsop@ietf.org>" <dnsop@ietf.org>, "<dnsext@ietf.org>" <dnsext@ietf.org>, "<pk@isoc.de>" <pk@isoc.de>, "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "<denghui02@hotmail.com>" <denghui02@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mif] [dnsext] [DNSOP] 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: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:21:31 -0000

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