IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 25 October 2011 17:20 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 AEEB611E8083; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 RHv9ZsOe5DYm; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DFED21F8C14; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:20:40 PDT
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 6AC1E1B8225; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
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 56E2C190061; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:20:37 -0700 (PDT) (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 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:20:37 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Thread-Topic: [dnsext] [DNSOP] [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document
Thread-Index: AQHMkpQpQamRm2eD6Eax/sfGruR2mJWNT6kN
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:20:37 +0000
Message-ID: <FDA43771-8A01-43D4-85FE-17E282F39F94@nominum.com>
References: <F2045A70-6314-41CF-AC3C-01F1F1ECF84C@network-heretics.com> <96472FB7-8425-4928-8F55-2ABF2CB59A93@conundrum.com> <628C128E-BDA8-46C3-BF07-364A482FE199@network-heretics.com> <20111024.080822.74700976.sthaug@nethelp.no> <59274CC1-611A-445B-A1CF-A0F49329DC1F@network-heretics.com> <E68B291B136EE9E8CFBF68F0@Ximines.local> <EEE0996F-FE4D-4ECF-A685-DD69DFCC87B9@network-heretics.com> <AFC2B32D1BE5A9E449B8D8A1@Ximines.local> <FAB38B5D-9B44-4B25-9268-9DE4A5DDC9FE@network-heretics.com> <4EA5D012.9090708@dougbarton.us> <45E6700D-4207-4807-B8A4-2CFC56440038@network-heretics.com>, <4EA5D8C1.9060303@dougbarton.us>
In-Reply-To: <4EA5D8C1.9060303@dougbarton.us>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "pk@isoc.de" <pk@isoc.de>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>, "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>, "dnsext@ietf.org" <dnsext@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:20:41 -0000

On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:30 PM, "Doug Barton" <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:

>> I think there's a need for IETF to document why any other value than 1 is a Bad Idea, and more to the point, why it will break things.    The problem isn't entirely specific to hosts with multiple interfaces.  But given that using multiple interfaces makes the problem worse, MIF might want to take on some of the work of documenting why it will break things.
> 
> That seems to be an opinion of yours that isn't widely shared.

The fact that many of us are tired of this interminable rathole and want it to stop is not an indication that we agree with you, Doug. Consensus is not, or at least should not be, determined by counting the number of email messages for and against.

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email