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

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Wed, 09 October 2013 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
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 97EE821E8177 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 UvhhAyCEW2Pj for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x229.google.com (mail-pb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3600921E814B for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id rp2so1282600pbb.28 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ijwhYAiyrBwWKq0mQTB/5PzwTsyn0aWjUbDqdU+0tpY=; b=opHDIugjhu7LIqsaxkwqRfK97f5uB3Pr2q0yqGWJs2Z3MU6cG+KtulyBS2iOhTDJ3N qa7/aoAwxZwWZRA8uE89wPUq7eUIncuR5wyqnycKDCjG6FP4bXEMiMxmLUd70CcztqYD 5u8K/yeoLPW4W2HQteE/sZ2dp6ywQHIkb3Z0Q=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=ijwhYAiyrBwWKq0mQTB/5PzwTsyn0aWjUbDqdU+0tpY=; b=WF4jnijxRNg38STy7jz77cSNlEdQUh/+yWla7VZCPXLEbkfKzNxt2SzvjSMLX98XpR mdk00BxodyAaXGS1LDviGPOsDFehcX4ZxCLoY5pwhSdwQcF0fZBzBBqQIkHCGx8UGVbz B1MsmU+I3BsE0InfdeIcHaEqqcsnGKkxh0lthu3pzYx6ubxxVXXUL9ls+G66f/ajgdQ/ xAbObgKugSQLAa7s1ertXnHiqCCpr9Yrk4P0kwp8yp6AN6BmxAuHPVzbT3S+vp2Xqt3t u1TEVahYI7lvSLaozZYH99jraw5xpIJaZFR30SvoHPL2/uBhLLqH7aWe3hmHJ1WXAM41 DD9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl+XiZv5bdPJUJWqht6BOX45aJ9TYUgfRRuk30sqQpLq2V7Pe7zTBrilq/Rdhma2+zruDnj
X-Received: by 10.66.170.168 with SMTP id an8mr11079387pac.58.1381341600303; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2620::ce0:104:a8af:1749:23a8:ed08? ([2620:0:ce0:104:a8af:1749:23a8:ed08]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id tz3sm47980277pbc.20.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <F1C4B4FB-DD91-43E3-8A01-226237BA68CE@nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:59:57 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0EF36A1D-8A3E-40DB-B2A3-C8D8A5D451D8@hopcount.ca>
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>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:16:46 -0700
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
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: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 18:00:36 -0000

On 2013-10-09, at 10:53, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> Of course there are cases where this doesn't matter, and DHCP is just fine, but I can't think of any other than perhaps a self-setting wall clock.

DNSSEC validation imposes a requirement for clock sync (to the accuracy reasonably required to consider signature inception and expiry times). There is a possible future in which such validation takes place on end hosts, rather than intermediate resolvers. (We may wind up somewhere else, but there are certainly people who think that is the Right Way).

In that sense any device that needs to look up names in the DNS has a potential requirement for time sync.

Of course even the wall clock you imagine might have a vendor who is capable of running their own array of time servers as (e.g.) Apple does, but it seems reasonable to imagine that there will be people who are not in that position, and since I agree with you when you say:

> Of course, if a CPE vendor were to hard-code the FQDN of an NTP server belonging to someone else into their devices, that would be disastrous.

it seems to me that there's a plausible use case for a DHCP client to receive direction on what servers to chime against.


Joe