Re: [dhcwg] Trust model of Client FQDN option
Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 04 August 2004 03:54 UTC
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08199; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 23:54:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BsCkd-0004CX-15; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 23:47:39 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BsCjj-00045C-Cp for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 23:46:43 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07763 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 23:46:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com ([204.152.186.142]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BsCmu-00089R-Ol for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 23:50:02 -0400
Received: from [66.93.162.248] (0127bhost242.starwoodbroadband.com [12.105.247.242]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3BB31B23A9; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:45:47 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408040144440.31389-100000@netcore.fi>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408040144440.31389-100000@netcore.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <E1911672-E5C8-11D8-8860-000A95D9C74C@fugue.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Trust model of Client FQDN option
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 20:46:34 -0700
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Aug 3, 2004, at 4:05 PM, Pekka Savola wrote: > The actual meat is missing, and does not address *DNS name* > authorization at all, just talks quite a bit about DHCP authentication > and different ways to eliminate DHCP spoofing. The meat isn't missing. It's just in the draft that defines how the server is supposed to do it. There is a normative reference to that draft in the FQDN draft. The FQDN draft defines the format of the FQDN option and what the bits in it mean. The reason they're in two separate drafts is that the IESG asked us to split the draft describing how DHCP does DNS updates into three drafts - one to describe the DNS RRtype, one to describe the DHCP option, and one to describe their interaction. Are you now asking that we merge the three drafts (actually, it's grown to five!) back into one? As for your question about names that are _already_ in the DNS, this is addressed in the DNS name conflict resolution draft (and has been addressed in that draft for six years, and was addressed in the joint draft before the draft was split into three). I also addressed it in the email to which you are replying. I would like to encourage you to read these drafts, in their current versions, thoroughly. If you have specific changes you would like to suggest, please suggest them. Include the wording you would like changed, removed, or added. Please make sure that your suggestions address the set of drafts, not just one specific draft. For example, if you don't feel that the FQDN draft adequately clues the reader in to the fact that they need to read the conflict resolution draft, suggest the wording you would like us to add to address that problem. Otherwise it's impossible to make forward progress - we either have to declare consensus without you, or not advance the drafts, and neither of these choices is desirable. _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] Trust model of Client FQDN option Pekka Savola
- Re: [dhcwg] Trust model of Client FQDN option Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Trust model of Client FQDN option Pekka Savola
- RE: [dhcwg] Trust model of Client FQDN option Bernie Volz
- RE: [dhcwg] Trust model of Client FQDN option Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] Trust model of Client FQDN option Mark Stapp
- RE: [dhcwg] Trust model of Client FQDN option Pekka Savola
- Re: [dhcwg] Trust model of Client FQDN option Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] Trust model of Client FQDN option Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] Trust model of Client FQDN option Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] Trust model of Client FQDN option Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] Trust model of Client FQDN option Ted Lemon