Re: [DNSOP] [dnsext] [mif] bare names (was: 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document)

2011-10-19 Thread Mark Andrews
In message <70c7abd5-df78-4f35-89de-152eb1d21...@lilacglade.org>, Margaret Wass erman writes: > > Hi Keith, > > On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > > split-brain DNS is an abomination that should be eradicated from the planet > . > > Split DNS exists and is in wide-spread use, and

Re: [DNSOP] [dhcwg] [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document

2011-10-19 Thread Ted Lemon
On Oct 19, 2011, at 1:58 PM, mailto:teemu.savolai...@nokia.com>> mailto:teemu.savolai...@nokia.com>> wrote: Now that you say it, we might state that not any VPN can be trusted by default (but VPN is an example here), but e.g. a VPN Configuration Profile could enable the setting for that particula

Re: [DNSOP] [dhcwg] [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document

2011-10-19 Thread teemu.savolainen
Ted, thank you for comments. Please feel free to propose text - I love constructive text proposals:-) During following week would be nice, if possible, so that we can move forward with the draft before the next IETF. Now that you say it, we might state that not any VPN can be trusted by default

Re: [DNSOP] [mif] bare names (was: [dnsext] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document)

2011-10-19 Thread Margaret Wasserman
Hi Keith, On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > split-brain DNS is an abomination that should be eradicated from the planet. Split DNS exists and is in wide-spread use, and that is just a fact. We don't have the power to eradicate it, nor do we currently have a better solution for

Re: [DNSOP] [dhcwg] [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document

2011-10-19 Thread Ted Lemon
The DHCP changes look good. You can get multiple selection tuples in DHCPv4 if you want, but you seem to have decided its not important, which is fine by me. Let me know if you want me to explain how to do that. However, I reread the text on server selection, and it still has a serious and e

Re: [DNSOP] [mif] bare names (was: [dnsext] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document)

2011-10-19 Thread Keith Moore
On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Note: I trimmed the cc:s down to just the lists, but if we're going to > pursue this dicussion we probably ought to follow up in mif, since > that's where the draft comes from. That's why I set reply-to. Also, > I sent this first from the wr

Re: [DNSOP] [mif] [dnsext] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document

2011-10-19 Thread Keith Moore
On Oct 19, 2011, at 6:39 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > > When new gTLDs are introduced it is likely for brand-name gTLDs that they > will wish to use bare names in the DNS (i.e. a single label hostname) for > their primary web sites. I don't see why IETF should give a flying *#&(*#$ what the owners o

Re: [DNSOP] [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document

2011-10-19 Thread teemu.savolainen
Hi all, This second WGLC resulted in very few comments. In the DHC WG we discussed about DHCPv4 option structure and in MIF there was a comment about document-internal reference bug. I have now uploaded a version six that contains: - Fixes to the DHCPv4 option structure -

[DNSOP] bare names (was: [mif] [dnsext] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document)

2011-10-19 Thread Andrew Sullivan
Note: I trimmed the cc:s down to just the lists, but if we're going to pursue this dicussion we probably ought to follow up in mif, since that's where the draft comes from. That's why I set reply-to. Also, I sent this first from the wrong address, so apologies to those who see it twice. On Wed,

[DNSOP] bare names (was: [mif] [dnsext] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document)

2011-10-19 Thread Andrew Sullivan
Note: I trimmed the cc:s down to just the lists, but if we're going to pursue this dicussion we probably ought to follow up in mif, since that's where the draft comes from. That's why I set reply-to. On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 07:23:15AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > I don't see why IETF should give

Re: [DNSOP] [dnsext] [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document

2011-10-19 Thread Ray Bellis
On 19 Oct 2011, at 07:42, wrote: > Hi all, > > This second WGLC resulted in very few comments. In the DHC WG we discussed > about DHCPv4 option structure and in MIF there was a comment about > document-internal reference bug. > > I have now uploaded a version six that contains: > -