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

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Tue, 28 August 2001 01:15 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05711; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:15:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA14922; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:12:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA14901 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:12:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05644 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:11:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (user-2inic6l.dialup.mindspring.com []) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f7S16Wf10282; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (localhost []) by grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f7S1C6T00354; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:12:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200108280112.f7S1C6T00354@grosse.bisbee.fugue.com>
To: Mark Stapp <mjs@cisco.com>
cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: Message from Mark Stapp <mjs@cisco.com> of "Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:56:07 EDT." <>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:12:05 -0400
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
Subject: [dhcwg] Re: Last call for <draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-option-02.txt>
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

> 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


dhcwg mailing list