We are 128 days past the = WGLC comment deadline, and 120 days past the date when comments given durin= g WLGC were addressed in the draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-07.

<= /p>

Could we get this draft e= ither to IESG, or should we still make some updates? There=A1=AFs still tim= e before IETF#83 deadlines to do some updates, but I=A1=AFd like to hear sooner rather than later.

<= /p>

Cheers,=

<= /p>

&= nbsp; Teemu

<= /p>

From: mif-boun= ces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Hui Deng
Sent: 30. syyskuuta 2011 18:29
To: mif@ietf.org; dnsext@ietf.org; dnsop@ietf.org; dhcwg@ietf.org Cc: pk@isoc.de; john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com; sa.morris7@google= mail.com
Subject: [mif] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document

Dear all<= br>
Based on 1st round WG LC, the authors have received significant advice abou= t revision and submited a new version accordingly:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mif-dns-serv= er-selection-05.txt

And we plan to issue a second round WG LC, and cc to DHCWG, DNSEXT, DN= SOP related working groups, please DNSEXT/DNSOP chairs help to forward to t= he MLs since I may not subscribe to them.

This is a 2 weeks with little extension LC, it will finish on Oct= ober 17,
Please send substantive review and editorial comments to mif@ietf.org

Thanks a lot for youre view
Best regards,

Margaret and Hui

Below are Teemu's writeup about the revision:

I uploaded -05 update so that next comments would take into account changes=
I already did based on discussions with Murray (as was copied to this list)= .
The biggest clarifications related to how DNS queries are sent to different=
servers and when all servers are waited for answers (if reply is not
validated) and when not. I.e. this text:
--
A node SHALL send requests to DNS servers in the order defined by th= e
priority list until an acceptable reply is received, all replies are=
received, or a time out occurs. In the case of a requested nam= e
matching to a specific domain or network rule accepted from any
interface, a DNSSEC-aware resolver MUST NOT proceed with a reply tha= t
cannot be validated using DNSSEC until all DNS servers on the
priority list have been contacted or timed out. This protects<= br> against possible redirection attacks. In the case of the reque= sted
name not matching to any specific domain or network, first received<= br> response from any DNS server MAY be considered acceptable. A D= NSSEC-
aware node MAY always contact all DNS server in an attempt to receiv= e
a response that can be validated, but contacting all DNS servers is<= br> not mandated for the default case as in some deployments that would<= br> consume excess resources.
--
       Teemu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mif-bounces@ietf.org= [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> ext internet-drafts@ietf.o= rg
> Sent: 20. syyskuuta 2011 22:10
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org=
> Cc: mif@ietf.org
> Subject: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-05.txt<= br> - =CF=D4=CA=BE=D2=FD= =D3=C3=CE=C4=D7=D6 -
>
> 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-I= nterfaced
> Nodes
>       Author(s)    &= nbsp; : Teemu Savolainen
>            = ;            &n= bsp; Jun-ya Kato
>            = ;            &n= bsp; Ted Lemon
>       Filename    &n= bsp;   : draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-0 5.txt
>       Pages     = ;      : 26
>       Date     =        : 2011-09-20
>
>    A multi-interfaced node is connected to multiple net= works, some of
>    which may be utilizing private DNS namespaces. = A node commonly
>    receives DNS server configuration information from a= ll connected
>    networks. Some of the DNS servers may have inf= ormation about
>    namespaces other servers do not have. When a m= ulti-interfaced node
>    needs to utilize DNS, the node has to choose which o= f the servers to
>    contact to. This document describes DHCPv4 and= DHCPv6 option that
>    can be used to configure nodes with inform ation req= uired 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-05.= txt