[dhcwg] update on dhcp/dns drafts' progress

Mark Stapp <mjs@cisco.com> Fri, 15 November 2002 19:41 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16664 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:41:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gAFJi0V10703 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:44:00 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org []) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAFJi0v10700 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:44:00 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16646 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:41:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain []) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAFJfiv10641; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:41:44 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org []) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAFJYPv09708 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:34:25 -0500
Received: from rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16358 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:31:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from goblet.cisco.com (localhost []) by rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gAFJYfRo020912 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:34:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from MJS-W2K.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-149-97.cisco.com []) by goblet.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACC57767; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:34:17 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <>
X-Sender: mjs@goblet.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:34:17 -0500
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Mark Stapp <mjs@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [dhcwg] update on dhcp/dns drafts' progress
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>


The advance summaries that several authors have sent about their drafts 
have been pretty useful, and Ralph has prodded me to produce something 
similar about the dhcp/dns drafts. The current versions are:



The ddns-resolution and fqdn-option drafts last-called in October last 
year. The related dhcid rr draft also last-called, after some last-minute 
procedural hijinks almost caused it to be lost. I responded to some 
post-last-call comments from Thomas Narten in November. It seemed by the 
March 2002 ietf that the various working-group chairs and ads were in 
synch. By the summer, I was concerned that we hadn't heard from the iesg, 
and I asked Ralph to try to help me understand what was going on. In July, 
a significant issue was raised. Ralph, Olafur, and I agreed that we should 
address it, and I published revisions to the ddns-resolution and dhcid-rr 

The Issue

The evolution of the dhcid-rr draft led to a situation in which details 
about the data within the dhcid-rr were present in two different drafts. 
History is to blame here, as usual. Years ago, there was a very simple 
dhcid-rr specification. It said, basically, "This RR holds binary data. If 
you want to know how to generate this data, go look in the dhc wg's 
ddns-resolution draft."

The dnsext folks were not satisfied with this approach, and over time more 
and more details about the dhcid rr data leaked from the ddns-resolution 
draft into the dhcid-rr draft. By the summer, that had led to parallel 
language in the two specifications. The wg chairs were concerned that that 
would lead to implementation problems.

The Current Drafts

The current versions of the drafts have moved all of the specification of 
the dhcid rr data into the dhcid-rr draft. The use of the dhcid-rr by 
updaters remains in the ddns-resolution draft.

The dhcid rr includes a 16-bit value specifying the source of the 
client-identity information. The original proposal for the RR proposed that 
this value would take on one of three values: the value zero if the 
identifier was the client's MAC address, the value 0xffff was reserved, and 
any other value would be the option number of the dhcp option that supplied 
the identifier (like the client-id option number). There was concern that 
this relied on non-overlapping v4 and v6 option number-spaces. The current 
draft specifies that this field holds an IANA-managed number. Four values 
are allocated initially: zero for the MAC address, one for the dhcpv4 
client-id option, two for the dhcpv6 duid, and 0xffff is reserved.

There is a slot at the end of the Atlanta agenda for discussion about these 
drafts, if that's necessary.

-- Mark

dhcwg mailing list