Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-14.txt> (Guidelines for Creating New DHCPv6 Options) to Best Current Practice

Sten Carlsen <stenc@s-carlsen.dk> Thu, 10 October 2013 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <stenc@s-carlsen.dk>
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 1F0E011E817E for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 XFwjay+3cjF4 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.s-carlsen.dk (mail2.s-carlsen.dk [IPv6:2001:16d8:dd00:81ac::17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401D511E817F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from silver4-wire.s-carlsen.dk (unknown [IPv6:2001:16d8:dd00:81ac:cabc:c8ff:fe91:1152]) by mail2.s-carlsen.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 13946124; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:20:44 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5256C5CB.9070709@s-carlsen.dk>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:20:43 +0200
From: Sten Carlsen <stenc@s-carlsen.dk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
References: <20130919215457.30925.98345.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB123C933B2@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <EF97C65E-A58C-4076-B737-014126786442@nominum.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB123C96CF3@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <29DE3138-F0E6-4CCB-A8A0-AD5D975E0866@nominum.com> <F474FA9D-CDC4-4DB7-937E-1252E203749F@iii.ca> <F1C4B4FB-DD91-43E3-8A01-226237BA68CE@nominum.com> <140C3FBE-AADA-420D-ADFD-80C929AF8EC3@iii.ca> <96FD71CE-ED4F-4F43-A24A-BAC991455C56@nominum.com> <C57B9F23-F8A7-422F-BFC6-F2ABB899B03D@iii.ca> <96AD4029-F81B-4BC5-90EB-D232F0A95A1A@nominum.com> <5256B7C1.8060402@s-carlsen.dk> <F73ED1F1-98A9-49F4-BF85-D01C77531C0A@nominum.com> <5256B9B5.4050206@s-carlsen.dk> <1753F064-4940-49DE-96B7-50A42BFD6FF7@nominum.com> <5256BD72.8020809@s-carlsen.dk> <02019EED-9776-4F34-8B4A-CBA59B3009FC@nominum.com> <34405136-69DE-46C3-AC25-870029698C10@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <34405136-69DE-46C3-AC25-870029698C10@nominum.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060901060301010803000609"
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-14.txt> (Guidelines for Creating New DHCPv6 Options) to Best Current Practice
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:20:52 -0000

On 10/10/13 16:52, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Sten Carlsen <stenc@s-carlsen.dk> wrote:
>>> What about requiring that it does a fresh lookup, IF it has the server specified as an FQDN? If it is only specified as an IP, obviously there is no option for lookup.
>> I think you just answered your own question. :)
> No, actually I just realized that I misunderstood your point.   I think you are right—if a name is entered into the UI, it needs to be resolved by the DHCP server at least as frequently as the TTL for the record that's returned when it's queried.
Just my point, that way any change would be picked up by devices even if
only IPs are sent in the option.

I did read your document, I think it would be good to get that finished
and made a standard. I do not quite see that it would be the place to
put the above requirement though since it states very clearly that it
places no new requirements on DHCP servers. It might be good to keep it
as a "Best practices of use" document.
>

-- 
Best regards

Sten Carlsen

No improvements come from shouting:

       "MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!"