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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 17 November 2011 05:35 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 731111F0C5B for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:35:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.564
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, 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 F8C32pajx5cE for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:35:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ECC61F0C42 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:35:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTsSdB/870KvnBJtGe6r8EDy88efMk62Z@postini.com; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:35:04 PST
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 F04D11B82E2 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:35:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (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 1117719005D; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:35:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:34:59 -0800
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif] Server selection document is "band-aid" not solution
Thread-Index: AQHMpM8ZeOJMqkjpCkunz3mHScTfw5WxD2cA//98Rew=
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 05:34:58 +0000
Message-ID: <23E1BB1B-75C8-45E9-8CA3-2E3DC9B6DBC6@nominum.com>
References: <4EC46D52.8030909@ogud.com>, <DB9F0066-1B81-4CC6-BCE3-2DE103558220@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB9F0066-1B81-4CC6-BCE3-2DE103558220@network-heretics.com>
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: "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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 05:35:11 -0000

On Nov 17, 2011, at 1:26 PM, "Keith Moore" <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
> It's not just that.  A fundamental design choice of DNS is that there is only one resolution context.  Yes, it's not unusual for that design choice to be violated.  But that still doesn't make it right for MIF to violate it.

Do you mean only one namespace?  It is not at all a fundamental assumption of the DNS that there is only one resolution context.   That is an implementation artifact that actually must be fixed if we are going to come up with a good solution to the MIF problem statement.