Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A72C311E80E6; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:34:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.544 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gxuTLaUCezcB; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:34:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF2411E80D6; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUBLtNMuTGXBlGlsHIJJTdBBjD5qSS6IK@postini.com; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:34:15 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F3D1B82CD; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8542719005D; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:34:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:34:11 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: Dave Thaler Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03 Thread-Index: Ac1lKbWyQQI76YWORI2Pw5j/xa2lTwGSVp6QAAD2YUAAALuhAAAiadTwAAl/+jAAD/3vgA== Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 19:34:10 +0000 Message-ID: References: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B70B231@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B7235BF@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E02CD82@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B72551C@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> In-Reply-To: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B72551C@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D2E362D0DEAB4024BC18A20D98862778nominumcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" , "pcp@ietf.org" , "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 19:34:16 -0000 --_000_D2E362D0DEAB4024BC18A20D98862778nominumcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Jul 27, 2012, at 3:06 PM, Dave Thaler wrote: Right. I think the goal should be to minimize the amount of processing th= e client has to do with the option contents... just pass it to getaddrinfo() = or equivalent was what the WG had discussed. Remembering that the DHCP server automatically translates names to IP addre= sses in its configuration, why is it necessary to place this burden on the = client? Traditionally DHCP just sends IP addresses, not names, precisely = because it minimizes the burden on the client while maintaining the flexibi= lity of doing name translation on the server. I assume you already consid= ered this, because I'm pretty sure you've seen debates about this go by bef= ore, but I'm curious as to why you decided to send a name rather than an IP= address. --_000_D2E362D0DEAB4024BC18A20D98862778nominumcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Jul 27, 2012, at 3:06 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:
Right.   I think the goal should be to minimize the amount of processin= g the
client has to do with the option contents... just pass it to getaddrinfo() = or
equivalent was what the WG had discussed.

Remembering that the DHCP server automatically translates names to IP = addresses in its configuration, why is it necessary to place this burden on= the client?   Traditionally DHCP just sends IP addresses, not names, = precisely because it minimizes the burden on the client while maintaining the flexibility of doing name translation = on the server.   I assume you already considered this, because I'm pre= tty sure you've seen debates about this go by before, but I'm curious as to= why you decided to send a name rather than an IP address.

--_000_D2E362D0DEAB4024BC18A20D98862778nominumcom_--