Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on <draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-09.txt>

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 05:21:50PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Anytime you say "just do it however you like" in a protocol  
> specification, you can bank on the fact that someone is going to do  
> it completely wrong.

I don't see section 6.3 as making anything near that kind of statement,
which is why I disagree.

I can see where you're coming from, I think.  You're worried that
the current wording encourages people to exceed the protocol.

I didn't get the same feel you are from those words.

>  The whole point of specifying a protocol is  
> not so that implementors can pick and choose what they want to do,  
> but so that implementors have a specific way of doing things that  
> will definitely produce the right result.   Implementors are always  

...and the only thing this document needs to do to ensure that is to
outline that full-nonpresence or matching-DHCID-presence is mandatory
for the dynamic update prerequisites.

See where I'm coming from?

It's a 'how you wear your pants' issue.  Do we really need to specify
which leg goes first?  So long as you get around to all of them in
the end, and we describe how those steps might differ, and to mind the
slot for your tail (if equipped), it's all good in the end.

I don't see the order of these dynamic update operations as needing to
be part of this protocol's specification, so much as at least one
plausible order of operations, and each of the updates that comprise it.

It does that now.

-- 
David W. Hankins		"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer			you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins