Re: Re: Would love to see reconsideration for domain and search

[Tim Hockin <thockin@google.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1666 bytes --]

On Oct 24, 2015 12:20 PM, "Kurt H Maier" <khm@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 02:24:11PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> >
> > I understand your point, though the world at large tends to disagree.
>
> The world at large uses bad software.  Please don't use this sort of
> reasoning as a justification for and embrace-extend operation on actual
> standards.

Where is the standard that defines ordering semantics in resolv.conf?

> > The real world is not ideal.  Not all nameservers are identically
> > scoped - you MUST respect the ordering in resolv.conf - to do
> > otherwise is semantically broken.  If implementation simplicity means
> > literally doing queries in serial, then that is what you should do.
>
> You absolutely cannot respect the ordering in resolv.conf; at least not
> if you're relying on someone else's resolver.  If the orchestration
> software depends on specific results being returned in particular
> orders, the orchestration software should provide a mechanism to
> generate them.
>
> > Similarly, you can't just search all search domains in parallel and
> > take the first response.  The ordering is meaningful.
>
> It should not be, and more to the point will not reliably be,
> meaningful.

Search has to be ordered.  You can not possibly argue otherwise?

> You are arguing for introducing performance penalties into musl that do
> not affect you but do very much affect lots of other users.  I hope they
> do not happen -- musl is not the right place to fix your problem.

I am arguing for adding a very standard feature (search) to open musl to a
whole new space of users. Nobody is forcing you to use search paths or
ndots.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2083 bytes --]