On 10/24/2011 13:58, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> On 10/24/2011 05:16, Keith Moore wrote:
>>> That's the point - search lists are not appropriate most of the time, and
>>> it's very hard for software to distinguish the cases where they are
>>> potentially appropriate from the cases when they're not, and it's not
>>> possible for software to do this in all cases.
>>
>> There's been something missing from this discussion, and I finally put
>> my finger on it. TMK most stub resolvers have an option similar to this
>> one from ISC's:
>>
>> ndots:n
>> sets a threshold for the number of dots which
>> must appear in a name given to res_query() (see
>> resolver(3)) before an initial absolute query
>> will be made. The default for n is “1”, mean‐
>> ing that if there are any dots in a name, the
>> name will be tried first as an absolute name
>> before any search list elements are appended to
>> it.
>>
>> So it seems that this question is already a matter of local policy,
>> which given the number and quality of the divergent views seems
>> eminently reasonable. Can we move on now?
>
> No, because relying on "local policy" is not sufficient for interoperability.
I don't see how local resolution issues feed into interoperability here.
> 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.
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
