Re: [PATCH 1/2] Avoid reverse resolution for server name

[Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>]

On 09/04/13 14:54, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:35:06PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/04/13 13:25, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 13:15 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/04/13 10:08, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 09:39 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/04/13 15:32, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>>>>>> A NFS client should be able to work properly even if the DNS Reverse record
>>>>>>> for the server is not set. There is no excuse to forcefully prevent that
>>>>>>> from working when it can.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch adds a new pair of options (-z/-Z) that allow to turn on/off
>>>>>>> DNS reverse resolution for determining the server name to use with GSSAPI.
>>>>>> Again, please tell me why we need the -Z flag when that is the default?
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea is to switch the default in the code at some point, so then -Z
>>>>> will be needed to get back to the original behavior.
>>>> I'm thinking that's what major version number changes are for... not flags...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea is that by having both flags a distribution may choose to
>>>>> decide now what behavior they want and use the relative flag. Then even
>>>>> if we change the default their configuration will not "break".
>>>> I'll do the work to remove the option and repost the patches..
>>>
>>> As you wish, I do not have hard preferences, should we take the bait and
>>> also by default *not* do PTR lookups ?
>> I was thinking no. Leaves the default as is and used the -z to avoid the
>> lookup... 
>>
>> I'm struggling with how big of a problem this really is, so why should be break
>> existing environments? I'm no DNS expert but I thinking not have PTR is 
>> a DNS config issue... but again I'm no expert...  
> 
> Argh, no, one away or another the default needs to be to not do the PTR
> lookup.
Fine... 
 
> 
> The transition Simo's using was Jeff's suggestion.  Let's just stick to
> that if we don't have a good reason.
Yeah... I would like to avoid adding to flags... I don't think both are 
needed.

> 
> (But I don't have strong opinions about how to do it either.  I'd
> actually be OK with being harsh and just switching to the new behavior
> without any option.)
My crutch is I'm not a big DNS guy so I'm not sure how much breakage 
would occur... So I would rather be on the safe side and give people
a way to go back... 

steved.