[mif] Server selection document is "band-aid" not solution

Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> Thu, 17 November 2011 02:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ogud@ogud.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 32C481F0C96 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:17:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.576
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, 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 gQ74uR05ECmf for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stora.ogud.com (stora.ogud.com [66.92.146.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2438B1F0C94 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (nyttbox.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.4]) by stora.ogud.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAH2Hc4p060333 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:17:38 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ogud@ogud.com)
Message-ID: <4EC46D52.8030909@ogud.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:11:30 +0800
From: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mif@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 10.20.30.4
Subject: [mif] Server selection document is "band-aid" not solution
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: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:17:41 -0000

I sorry for the late comment but it has taken me a while to be able to 
put my finger on what I feel is wrong with the document (and the 
discussion in the working group)

If a node has multiple interfaces and the interfaces have different 
resolution contexts then the basic question is
"How can the services on the node tell what resolution context an 
application wants to use ?"

Right now the "server-selection" document
The fundamental problem we have is that OS's have a built in assumptions 
that
a) there is only one resolution context i.e. only single /etc/resolv.conf

b) There is no way to label a process that it wants to be a part of 
certain resolution context or tell the resolution which context to use.

c) Results of resolution do not indicate which context was used.