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
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
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
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
of the
--On 24 October 2011 06:53:05 -0400 Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.com 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
--On 22 October 2011 19:41:58 + Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com 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
--On 24 October 2011 07:29:55 -0400 Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.com 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
On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:55 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:
--On 24 October 2011 07:29:55 -0400 Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
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 .
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
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
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
In message cb52baaf-f38f-4815-9b91-4656f1f38...@insensate.co.uk, 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
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 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 personally don't have
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've been
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
(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 lists
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
In message CAH1iCiqsN-R87VK3vKityPsY+NXA=0drasyf_vmbsy8gvyw...@mail.gmail.com
, 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
On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:15 AM, teemu.savolai...@nokia.com 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,
On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:15 AM,
teemu.savolai...@nokia.commailto:teemu.savolai...@nokia.com
teemu.savolai...@nokia.commailto: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
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 11:07 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:15 AM, teemu.savolai...@nokia.com
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
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
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 for
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 a
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: denghu...@hotmail.com; m...@ietf.org; dns...@ietf.org;
dnsop@ietf.org; dh...@ietf.org; p...@isoc.de;
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
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
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 19 Oct 2011, at 07:42, teemu.savolai...@nokia.com
teemu.savolai...@nokia.com 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
31 matches
Mail list logo
