Subject: [Add] communicating DNS configuration

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 04:31:45 -0800

Hi,

I noticed the first bullet point of the revised charter proposal was
"Communicating configuration between the network, operating system, and
applications".

It seems to me that it's somewhat novel and unwise for the IETF to insert
itself in the negotiation of DNS behavior between the operating system and
applications. To the extent that kind of thing can be standardized, isn't
it better suited to something like The Open Group?

Refinements on DHCP options and such seem like fair game, though.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:38:33 +0000

> it better suited to something like The Open Group?

RFC 3493 specifies getaddrinfo() but I don't know if the IETF still claims
change control over the API.

(It's kind of annoying that there used to be an almost de facto standard
in the BIND4 resolver API that made it possible to dig the server IP
address out of the resolver state structure, but implementations diverged
significantly when adding IPv6 support so that isn't possible any more.
Which makes it relatively hard for applications to get clever (e.g.
concurrent queries, validation, etc.) while co-operating with the
operating system resolver. And of course there's the issue of co-operating
with non-DNS name resolution such as /etc/hosts, SMB, etc...)

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
Trafalgar: Cyclonic becoming west, 4 to 6, occasionally 7 at first. Rough or
very rough, but moderate in sheltered southeast. Rain or thundery showers.
Good, occasionally poor.

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:48:22 -0800

> with non-DNS name resolution such as /etc/hosts, SMB, etc...)

I asked about this issue on the dprive list once, fwiw:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/ATxeUHBKpef27mvOjJypYigSK3o

Assuming that description is accurate, I'm not sure API suggestions make
sense in a standards track document (if that's what the goal is here...).

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Eric Orth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 07:37:31 +0800

The only precedence I can think of are the getaddrinfo RFCs, and those were
only ever informational.  While I really hope some new OS APIs for DNS
configuration can be standardized, I don't think IETF has the right
expertise to be the primary body for that work.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 5:48 AM Rob Sayre <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Add mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add
>

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:04:40 -0800

> Refinements on DHCP options and such seem like fair game, though.

There's surely an interpretation of "DHCP options and such" that
actually means "communicating parameters between the network and
applications."

For example, section 8 of RFC 2132 is entitled "Application and
Service Parameters" and describes DHCP options for configuring lots of
things that I would call applications.

Joe

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:35:31 -0800

> actually means "communicating parameters between the network and

I agree. There are three relations here:

Network -> OS
Network -> Application
OS -> Application

It's only the last one that strikes me as something the IETF might not be
the right venue for. It occurs to me that the charter might have only been
intended to cover the first two. Some wordsmithing to make it clear what's
in scope is probably needed, but I'm hesitant to suggest anything, because
I don't know what the intent was.

thanks,
Rob