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

Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com> Mon, 27 August 2001 21:05 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00381; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:05:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA04747; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:05:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA04721 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:05:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00330 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:03:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from apple.con (A17-128-100-225.apple.com []) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21075 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by apple.con (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id <T55a0bd67f8118064e13a0@apple.con>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:03:07 +0100
Received: from [] (vpn-gh-1056.apple.com []) by scv1.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA01850; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200108272105.OAA01850@scv1.apple.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:04:58 -0700
x-sender: cheshire@mail.apple.com
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
To: "Mark Stapp" <mjs@cisco.com>, "DHCP discussion list" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
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

>At the London meeting, your client did not have credentials
>(I'm betting) that would have allowed it to update "ietf.org" or
>"meetings.ietf.org", and the DNS primary for ietf.org probably
>would not have accepted unauthenticated updates from your laptop.

Why would that have been useful? What's the point of having a constant 
well-know host name if that host name keep changing every time you move?

If my laptop is called "something.ietf.org." when I'm at an IETF meeting, 
and "something.apple.com." when I'm at work, and 
"something.stanford.edu." when I'm at Stanford, what use is that?

My host *did* have various names of the form 
"host217-33-141-85.ietf.ignite.net" while I was at the meeting, which had 
both valid forward and reverse mappings. If my host is going to have some 
name which it cannot control and which no one else knows, then who cares 
whether it was dynamically updated or not?

>You downloaded a separate application that performs dns updates for you. 

A protocol specification should specify packets on the wire, not how the 
software is packaged.

>What your dhcp client must not do is initiate updates for the name
>in the fqdn option if the server tells it not to.

If the DNS administrator doesn't want me to initiate updates, then that's 
achieved simply by not giving my client the cryptographic credentials 
necessary to do the updates. If I don't have the credentials, then I 
can't do the update, and the question of whether my client obey's the 
DHCP server or not becomes a moot point.

>no one is interested in 'arbitrary domain names'.

That text about 'arbitrary domain names' was quoted from your draft.

>The host name option already has deployed behavior,

Which works fine.

>and specifies an ascii encoding.

Which works fine.

>can't exchange information about who should perform the update,

Then perhaps the draft should be specifying a "who wants to do the 
dynamic DNS update?" option, not an Fully Qualified Domain Name option.

Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer
 * Chairman, IETF ZEROCONF
 * www.stuartcheshire.org

dhcwg mailing list