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

2011-10-25 Thread Jeffrey Hutzelman
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 16:58 -0400, 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

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

2011-10-25 Thread Jeffrey Hutzelman
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 19:30 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: On Oct 24, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: 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?

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

2011-10-25 Thread Jeffrey Hutzelman
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 11:42 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: In regards to 3, let's say I have a domain, example.org. In my network I have various subdomains that represent various network segments, let's say foo, bar, and baz. Personally, I find it convenient to put 'example.com' in the search list

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

2011-10-25 Thread Ted Lemon
On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: 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

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

2011-10-25 Thread Doug Barton
On 10/25/2011 10:20, Ted Lemon wrote: On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: 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