Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC for LLMNR

From: Markku Savela <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 18:25:00 +0300

I've some comments on this...

> This is a last call for the DNSEXT document
> 	Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-22.txt

--------------------------------------
....
2.3.  Unicast queries and responses

Unicast queries SHOULD be sent when:

  a.  A sender repeats a query after it received a response
      with the TC bit set to the previous LLMNR multicast query, or

  b.  The sender queries for a PTR RR.
....
---------------------------------------

Concerning 2.3 (b): How are you supposed to generate a unicast query
out of PTR query, which is NOT  "*.in-addr.arpa" or "*.ip6.arpa"?

Thus, the section should be amended to include only PTR queries that
are actually constructed from full IP addresses? Other PTR queries
need to go via normal UDP?

---------------------------------------
....
4.  Conflict resolution
....
   - multiple hosts may respond to a query for an A or AAAA type
     record for a cluster name (assigned to multiple hosts in
     the cluster)
   - only a single host may respond to a query for an A or AAAA
     type record for a hostname.
....
---------------------------------------

The "cluster name" semantics is unclear to. How does a sender that
queries a name know whether the name is a "hostname" or "cluster
name"? Two choices:

a) it's implicitly a "cluster name", if multiple answers are received
(e.g. there will never be any conflict from sender viewpoint).

b) each host must be configured locally with the list of legal
"cluster names", and sender only accepts multiple answers for these
names.

I assume (a) is intended?

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:04:27 -0400

Just a reminder this is an ongoing WG last call
But I forgot to put an explicit deadline on this one so the deadline is
August 25'th (that will make it 3 week last call).

         Olafur

At 10:23 2003-08-04, Ólafur Gudmundsson/DNSEXT co-chair wrote:

>This document defines a new protocol that operates on a local link where
>there to enable name resolution. This protocol inherits DNS wire
>formats but operates on a different port and different transport.
>
>This protocol has been thorough many changes in the last 6 months to
>make it cleaner, simpler and to avoid it becoming a possible DoS amplifier.
>For a listing of previously proposed and resolved issues, see the LLMNR 
>Issues web page, available at:
>http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/DNSEXT/llmnrissues.html
>
>Please read the document, send in statements of 
>support/opposition/clarifications/etc.
>This protocol is on standards track, if you disagree with that
>please speak up.
>
>If there is no discussion about this document the default action by
>chairs is to advance it as that seems to be the recommendation of the
>people that have commented on this document over the last one year.
>
>         Olafur
>
>
>--