[dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between DNS TTL and DHCP lease length

DDNS-DHCP issue:

   The RR TTLs need careful attention so that it never exceeds the
   expiration time of the lease on the associated address.

This issue was anticipated by Patrick Cosmo:

On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Cosmo, Patrick wrote:

> I have found some minor issues with the
> <draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-05.txt>, I apologize if they have already
> been brought up.
>
> In particular, this statement in section 5. (DNS RR TTLs) on page 5:
>
> "The RR TTL on a DNS record added for with a DHCP lease SHOULD NOT exceed
> 1/3 of the lease time, and SHOULD be at least 10 minutes."
>
> 1. This sentence has some bad grammar ("for with" : ... record added for
> with a DHCP lease ...).
>
> 2. The statement is contradictory if the lease time is less than 30 minutes.
> When the lease time is less than 30 minutes, which suggestion takes
> precendence? : min. 10 minutes, or max or 1/3 lease time?
>
> 3. The section seems intended to suggest a reasonable TTL for these records,
> but doesn't seem to pull through or suggest much of anything (IMHO) other
> than "it should be a function of lease time, and it should be configurable".
>
>
> Patrick Cosmo
>
> Senior Product Engineer
> Incognito Software Inc
> Vancouver: (604) 688-4332 ext: 254
> Toll-Free: 1-800-877-1856
> http://www.incognito.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 7:36 PM
> To: dhcwg@ietf.org; namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: [dhcwg] Issues in DDNS-DHCP interaction drafts
>
>
> The following drafts have passed WG last call:
>
> [1] A DNS RR for Encoding DHCP Information (DHCID RR)
>     <draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-06.txt>
>
> [2] The DHCP Client FQDN Option
>     <draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-option-05.txt>
>
> [3] Resolution of DNS Name Conflicts Among DHCP Clients
>     <draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-05.txt>
>
> Several issues regarding these drafts have been identified
> during the AD review prior to IESG review for Proposed
> Standard status.  I will initiate discussion threads on
> each of these issues later today with e-mail to both
> the dhcwg and namedroppers mailing lists.  Please respond
> just to the dhcwg mailing list to avoid duplicate postings...
>
> - Ralph
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg