Subject: Proposed resolution to LLMNR Issue 38: DNS proxy undefined

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 19:09:49 -0700 (PDT)

The text of Issue 38 is given below.

The proposed resolution is to substitute "DNS server" for "DNS proxy"
wherever it appears in the document.

Any objections?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 38: DNS proxy undefined
Submitter: Andreas Gustafsson
Submitter email address: [email-masked]
Date first submitted: May 9, 2003
Reference: <[email-masked]>
Document: LLMNR-18
Comment type: T
Priority: S
Section: 1, 3.2
Rationale/Explanation of issue:
draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-18.txt makes repeated references to an entity
called a "DNS proxy". The term "DNS proxy" is not defined in the
draft, and there is no DNS standard or RFC defining the behavior of
such a device.

Requested change:

Remove all references to a "DNS proxy".

[BA] Proposed resolution is to substitute "DNS server" for "DNS proxy"
throughout.

--
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: Kevin Darcy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 19:29:27 -0400

I think "recursive resolver" would be more precise. "DNS server" could be
mistaken for "authoritative server". Speaking of which, I think you use
the term "DNS server" sometimes to mean an authoritative server, and at
other times, to mean a recursive resolver. You should probably audit that
usage simultaneously.

- Kevin

---

From: [email-masked] (Andreas Gustafsson)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 18:40:05 -0700 (PDT)

> other times, to mean a recursive resolver. You should probably audit that

The -18 draft also talked about the DNS proxy "supporting dynamic
update", which makes no sense if it was indeed referring to a
recursive resolver.

In the scenario involving a "home gateway", DHCP, and dynamic DNS,
there actually needs to be both a caching server (aka recursive
resolver) and an authoritative server (where names are registered
using DDNS), but each of these can independently be on the local wire,
integrated into the gateway, or anywhere else on the Internet
reachable through the gateway.

Since the location of these servers is entirely immaterial, any time
the draft mentions them being in a specific location or claiming that
a "proxy" is needed to reach them, it is only confusing the issue.
This is why I requested that any mention of a proxy be removed, not
changed.
-- 
Andreas Gustafsson, [email-masked]