[dhcwg] Re: Last call for <draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-option-02.txt>

> Do you mean that even if the server was configured by 
> you, and it asked your client not to update grosse.fugue.com, you'd like 
> your client to update that zone anyway?

No, I mean that there's really no way for the client to know that this
is the case, so I want my client to always update the zone, because I
explicitly told it to.  But I don't want the draft to recommend this -
my case is weird, and so is Stuart's, at least for now.  I just want
the draft to not forbid this.

> I guess I don't see the point of that: if the dns and dhcp share
> administration

This is a semantically null statement in the present context, which is
why this isn't making sense.   If there were some way for the DHCP
server to be able to say "I am authoritative for the domain you
specified, and please don't update it," then that would be fine, but
that's not really possible with the present draft, and I am _not_
proposing that you fix this!   :'}

> If you get to ignore that bit, why don't 
> the win2k clients get to ignore it too, and fire updates into your zone?

They just happen not to, because (I presume) that is what the spec
recommends.

			       _MelloN_

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg