[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151023052625.GD55813@wopr.sciops.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 01:26:25 -0400
From: Kurt H Maier <khm@....org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: Would love to see reconsideration for domain and
search
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.
> 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.
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.
khm
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
