Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option-06

Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> Wed, 10 November 2010 06:25 UTC

Return-Path: <dthaler@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20803A6818 for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 22:25:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h2MCYh4wzDvY for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 22:25:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.215]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3D0D3A6817 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 22:25:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.159) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 22:26:07 -0800
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.39) by TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.255.3; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 22:26:07 -0800
Received: from TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.224]) by TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.39]) with mapi; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 22:26:07 -0800
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option-06
Thread-Index: AQHLgGwFiMtbkBPBxE+u/+ATgzDUmpNqZyKAgAARUgCAAAb9gIAAQteA//96WzA=
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:26:05 +0000
Message-ID: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF6534381D48@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <20101108182237.GE5204@isc.org> <230B28F4-A6D9-42C8-A0EE-B50CA493E2D5@nominum.com> <F3226F18-CB39-42F3-AA3B-0D30E89EADD1@juniper.net> <815B4C8E-B2D4-4211-93BC-FE1D687B3D3F@nominum.com> <7DE39A41-2511-443A-ABDB-EF118474035A@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7DE39A41-2511-443A-ABDB-EF118474035A@gmail.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: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option-06
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:25:44 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Ralph Droms
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:14 PM
> To: Ted Lemon
> Cc: softwires@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option-06
> 
> And is there a description of the "local name resolution library" (quoting Dave)
> that meets the requirements of the softwires usage expectation?  That is, does
> the softwires WG expect "the usual" behavior by just handing the contents of
> the option to the local name resolution library, or by formulating several
> different FQDNs according to some specific rules, or ???

The usual behavior.  Just take the string in the option, and pass it to the
standard APIs (or their equivalents).  There's nothing different here than
(say) what a browser does with the hostname portion of a URI.

If you want something to reference, maybe RFC 3493 section 6.1.
Other relevant references would be RFC 1123 section 6.1.1, and
end of section 1 of draft-iab-idn-encoding-04 (waiting for RFC # to
be assigned by the RFC editor).

There might be a better reference but at least those are some.

-Dave

> 
> - Ralph
> 
> On Nov 10, 2010, at 10:15 AM 11/10/10, Ted Lemon wrote:
> 
> > On Nov 10, 2010, at 9:50 AM, Alain Durand wrote:
> >> Why can't we just say: "pass this to the local DNS resolver" and be done? Why
> should the process of going through the search list be specified in this draft?
> >
> > This is a good point.   I think there's a tension here between being overly
> prescriptive and not saying anything at all, though.   Is there an RFC that
> describes resolver in such a way that it could be referenced here?   It's all in
> RFC1034, but not in such a way that you could make a meaningful and concise
> reference to it.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Softwires mailing list
> > Softwires@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires