Subject: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:42:16 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Multiple Interfaces Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Improved DNS Server Selection for Multi-Interfaced Nodes
	Author(s)       : Teemu Savolainen
                          Jun-ya Kato
                          Ted Lemon
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-04.txt
	Pages           : 25
	Date            : 2011-09-13

   A multi-interfaced node is connected to multiple networks, some of
   which may be utilizing private DNS namespaces.  A node commonly
   receives DNS server configuration information from all connected
   networks.  Some of the DNS servers may have information about
   namespaces other servers do not have.  When a multi-interfaced node
   needs to utilize DNS, the node has to choose which of the servers to
   contact to.  This document describes DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 option that
   can be used to configure nodes with information required to perform
   informed DNS server selection decisions.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-04.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-04.txt

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:49:46 +0000

Hi all,

I wanted to share the current working version where I have accommodated
feedback I've received this far (I need to check if I've missed any, there
has been quite a bunch) and also fixed quite some nits. I changed title to
"multi-interfaced" from "multi-homed" in recollection if discussion with
Brian on v6ops list earlier.

I have two questions:
- is it ok to have ip6.arpa and in-addr.arpa in both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6
options?
- should the question of "The resolver MUST take into account differences in
trust levels of pieces of received DNS server selection information." Be
MAY/SHOULD/MUST? Current text says MUST.

Thank you for all feedback,

	Teemu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> ext [email-masked]
> Sent: 13. syyskuuta 2011 22:42
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-04.txt
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Multiple Interfaces Working Group of the
> IETF.
> 
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-04.tx
t
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif