On 10/25/2011 10:20, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:30 PM, "Doug Barton"
> 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 wi
On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:30 PM, "Doug Barton" 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 that
>> using
In message , Lawrence Con
roy writes:
> Hi there Doug, Keith, folks,
> Speaking of broken mechanisms ... how many dots?
> arstechnica.com is OK
> co.uk is not OK
>
> ndots strikes me as a chocolate soldier in the fire used to warm the
> chocolate teapot that is search lists.
>
> At best
Hi there Doug, Keith, folks,
Speaking of broken mechanisms ... how many dots?
arstechnica.com is OK
co.uk is not OK
ndots strikes me as a chocolate soldier in the fire used to warm the chocolate
teapot that is search lists.
At best these are context dependent (and keep IT support in busin
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
>>> pote
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
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 no
On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:55 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:
>
>
> --On 24 October 2011 07:29:55 -0400 Keith Moore
> wrote:
>
>
I'm just pointing out that for the vast majority of the contexts in
which domain names are used, the expectation is that a domain name that
contains a "." is full
--On 24 October 2011 07:29:55 -0400 Keith Moore
wrote:
I'm just pointing out that for the vast majority of the contexts in
which domain names are used, the expectation is that a domain name that
contains a "." is fully-qualified.
This is sampling bias.
No, I don't think so. The vast m
On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:
> --On 24 October 2011 06:53:05 -0400 Keith Moore
> wrote:
>
>> I'm just pointing out that for the vast majority of the contexts in which
>> domain names are used, the expectation is that a domain name that
>> contains a "." is fully-qualified.
>
--On 22 October 2011 19:41:58 + Ted Lemon wrote:
Yes. But if a bare name is used, a bogus search list can also bypass
DNSSEC validation.
For the hard of understanding, please could you expand on this?
Doesn't the client know the full name being looked up, even with a search
list?
--
--On 24 October 2011 06:53:05 -0400 Keith Moore
wrote:
I'm just pointing out that for the vast majority of the contexts in which
domain names are used, the expectation is that a domain name that
contains a "." is fully-qualified.
This is sampling bias.
In the vast majority of contexts wh
On Oct 24, 2011, at 2:08 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>>> I can't agree with this statement. As others have said, the practice of
>>> using a search list to allow 'ssh foo.bar' to reach 'foo.bar.example.com'
>>> isn't going anywhere, and there are a lot of people that make extensive use
>>> o
> > I can't agree with this statement. As others have said, the practice of
> > using a search list to allow 'ssh foo.bar' to reach 'foo.bar.example.com'
> > isn't going anywhere, and there are a lot of people that make extensive use
> > of the convenience.
>
> It needs to die because it's fun
On Oct 23, 2011, at 2:39 AM, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>
> On 2011/10/22, at 15:21, Keith Moore wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>>> 1. I think we're all in agreement that dot-terminated names (e.g.,
>>> example.) should not be subject to search lists. I persona
In message <96472fb7-8425-4928-8f55-2abf2cb59...@conundrum.com>, Matthew Pounse
tt writes:
>
> On 2011/10/22, at 15:21, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> >
> > On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> >
> >> 1. I think we're all in agreement that dot-terminated names (e.g.,
> >> example.) should
On Oct 23, 2011, at 2:39 AM, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
I think we need to accept that this practice is here to stay, and figure out
how to deal with it on those terms.
There is no secure way to do search lists in a MIF environment. Or, really,
even in a SIF environment. So saying "we just have
On 2011/10/22, at 15:21, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> 1. I think we're all in agreement that dot-terminated names (e.g.,
>> example.) should not be subject to search lists. I personally don't have
>> any problems with any document mentioning that t
On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
True. But unsecured DNS is easily exploited regardless of whether bare names
are used. (and I've never bought the idea that DNSSEC verification can
reasonably be done by an external host)
Yes. But if a bare name is used, a bogus search list ca
On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 08:13, Keith Moore wrote:
>> Names containing "." should not be subject to search lists. Given a
>> name like foo.bar, there's no reliable way to tell whether "bar" is a
>> TLD or a subdomain of something in the search list.
>
> I
On 10/21/2011 08:13, Keith Moore wrote:
> Names containing "." should not be subject to search lists. Given a
> name like foo.bar, there's no reliable way to tell whether "bar" is a
> TLD or a subdomain of something in the search list.
I've been following this discussion, mostly in the hopes tha
On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> IMO: search lists are useful, but only with "bare names" - and the behavior
>> of those should be implementation dependent. Trying to nail it down will
>> break too much widespread practice.
>
On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> And honestly I don't see why handling of non-DNS names like "foo" is in
>> scope for MIF.
>
> Because such names are typically resolved using DNS search lists, and at
> lease one mechanism f
On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
IMO: search lists are useful, but only with "bare names" - and the behavior of
those should be implementation dependent. Trying to nail it down will break
too much widespread practice.
On a desktop workstation they are useful, because you can lar
On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:15 AM,
> wrote:
>> 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, an
On Oct 21, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
And honestly I don't see why handling of non-DNS names like "foo" is in scope
for MIF.
Because such names are typically resolved using DNS search lists, and at lease
one mechanism for setting up search lists is interface-specific.
___
On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:15 AM,
mailto:teemu.savolai...@nokia.com>>
mailto:teemu.savolai...@nokia.com>> wrote:
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 wo
On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:15 AM, wrote:
> Brian,
>
> Do you agree that nodes' behavioral differences between "foo" and "foo."
> names is out of the scope of this particular MIF draft?
That's not how I would state it. I think handling of "foo." is something that
IETF can define, but handling of
In message
, Brian Dickson writes:
> 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
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
(resending only to mailing list recipients)
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 li
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 diff
In message <94c2e518-f34f-49e4-b15c-2cccfaa96...@virtualized.org>, David Conrad
writes:
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> > It might that IETF should consider "bare names" out of its scope, except pe
> rhaps to say that they're not DNS names, they don't have to necessarily be ma
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
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.
Hi Ray,
> -Original Message-
> From: ext Ray Bellis [mailto:ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk]
> Sent: 19. lokakuuta 2011 13:40
> To: Savolainen Teemu (Nokia-CTO/Tampere)
> Cc: ; ; ;
> ; ; ;
>
> Subject: Re: [dnsext] [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection
> document
>
> I have concerns
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:
> -
37 matches
Mail list logo
