RE: DHCP - DynDNS Interaction

[Glenn Stump <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, March 18, 1996 9:10 AM, Yakov Rekhter[SMTP:[e-mail]] wrote:
> 
> 
> I'd like to get an input from the DHC WG members whether the WG would
> insist on requiring DynDNS Updates to provide a mechanism to convey the
> expiration time (DynDNS doesn't have such a mechanism at the present
> moment), or whether the WG would agree that I would document in the
> DHCP-DynDNS Internet Draft the (potential) limitations imposed by the 
> absence of such a mechanism in DynDNS, and we'll live with the limitations.
> 
> Yakov.
>  

Having been to the meetings in LA for both DHC and DNSIND working groups,
I understand the interest within DNSIND to move DynDNS forward.  However,
the "industry hat" I wear tells me that DynDNS without expiration times (and without
a corresponding security mechanism for just the update process) is commercially 
uninteresting.  My fear is that vendors (like IBM) will end up inventing stop-
gap mechanisms or flows to satisfy their customers (which in turn may lead to a
huge interoperability headache down the road).  
 
I suggest DHC insist on the inclusion of an expiration mechanism in DynDNS because,  very simply:  for DHCP (at least), DynDNS without expiration times is not sufficient.
From a process perspective, maybe we/DHC document the current DynDNS 
shortcomings in the DHCP-DNS draft for now, as you suggest, and trust that the
expiration time requirement will be addressed by DynDNS sooner or later.  That way,
we (DHCP-DNS) move forward on what we can/have agreed on 
(re. DHCP option mechanism for DynDNS),  but we also go on record as objecting 
to the current DynDNS so that our rqmt doesn't get lost/dropped. 

[I'm sort of new to this IETF process stuff... feel free to "coach" me off-line of that
doesn't make sense.]

Regards,
  Glenn Stump
  IBM TCP/IP Products
  Research Triangle Park, NC