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

(Please follow up to dhcwg@ietf.org mailing list. - RD)

>Subject: Re: Last call for <draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-option-02.txt> 
>Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:52:30 -0400
>From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
>
>
>> >If when you say, "If a client ... wants to be responsible for updating
>> >... then the client MUST ..." you're not talking about my machine as the
>> >"client", but specifically only the DHCP code on the machine, then the
>> >"if" clause is trivially false. My DHCP code only ever sends and receives
>> >DHCP packets. Any code on my machine that sends and receives DNS Update
>> >packets is by definition DNS Update code, not DHCP code.
>> 
>> The DHCP client and server are exchanging information about the local 
>> administrative domain, the one where the host is booting. If your DHCP 
>> client wanted to maintain the name in the fqdn option, a name in a local 
>> zone, it would have to comply with this requirement. Since it doesn't, it 
>> doesn't.
>
>My client _always_ sends grosse.fugue.com in the FQDN option.  I
>thought that was how the FQDN option was supposed to be used.  It also
>always updates my DNS server.  It would be wrong for the DHCP server
>to tell me not to update grosse.fugue.com, unless it was administered
>by me (I own the fugue.com domain).  However, it's quite possible that
>it might do this anyway.  It could do this because it can't be
>configured to selectively permit or deny updates based on whether or
>not the client sent an FQDN, and the administrator wants to prevent
>the latter case (Microsoft Win2k clients will otherwise attempt to do
>the update in the local domain, causing errors to be logged by the
>local name server).   It might also be the case that the server
>administrator is not willing to let you set up a working PTR/A pair,
>and is trying to signify that by saying you shouldn't do an update.
>
>I don't think I am out of conformance with the spec if I ignore the
>no-client-update bit in the FQDN option - if I am, then you should
>probably change the relevant MUST to a SHOULD.   I have a feeling that
>that would address Stuart's objections... :'}
>
>                               _MelloN_

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