Brian, Do you agree that nodes' behavioral differences between "foo" and "foo." names is out of the scope of this particular MIF draft?
There could perhaps be another draft, which would say that if name is "foo" it should not be appended with search lists but "foo." might? And whatever other differences in their handling would be, and what impacts it would have e.g. intranet designers? Please see also in another email my suggestion for section 4.6 text. That text should now allow possible changes for the bare name handling while still allowing coexistence with DNS server selection. Best regards, Teemu > -----Original Message----- > From: dnsext-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of ext Brian Dickson > Sent: 21. lokakuuta 2011 06:16 > To: Keith Moore > Cc: m...@ietf.org; dnsop@ietf.org; dns...@ietf.org; p...@isoc.de; > john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com; dh...@ietf.org; > denghu...@hotmail.com; Brian E Carpenter > Subject: Re: [dnsext] [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection > document > > I think we can skirt this rat-hole if we separate the two following distinct > cases: > > Case A: "foo" > Case B: "foo." (with terminating "dot"). > > Case B meets the technical requirements of a Fully Qualified Domain Name, > structurally speaking. > Case A does not. > > Case A is a "bare name", case B is not. > > If we stick to the notions of FQDN versus anything else, we can avoid > entering the rat-hole, IMHO. > > (I.e., We don't need to get into any issues over the number of labels in an > FQDN; an FQDN does not require treatment, special or otherwise; etc., etc.,) > > Brian Dickson > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Keith Moore <moore@network- > heretics.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:19 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > > >> On Oct 20, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > >>> It might that IETF should consider "bare names" out of its scope, except > perhaps to say that they're not DNS names, they don't have to necessarily be > mappable to DNS names, and that their use and behavior is host and > application-dependent. > >> > >> Can we please not redefine what a "DNS name" is to meet a particular > agenda? > > > > I wasn't trying to do so. > > > >> Isn't it sufficient to say a 'bare name' does not conform to a hostname as > defined in RFC 952 and modified by RFCs 1122? > > > > Probably. I'm just suggesting that trying to nail down the behavior of such > names is probably a rathole as well as likely to cause significant disruption. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dnsext mailing list > > dns...@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext > > > _______________________________________________ > dnsext mailing list > dns...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
