Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pusateri-dnsop-update-timeout-00.txt

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

The DHCP case isn't actually a problem today.   DHCP servers automatically
remove these records.   The ISC server has been doing this for 20 years,
and I'm pretty sure all the other servers that compete with it do too.

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Tom Pusateri <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Aug 24, 2018, at 9:54 AM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Tom Pusateri <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Yes, it was intended to be more general than for service registration.
> It’s directly applicable to name registration for IP addresses. I can add a
> section on other uses if more motivation is desired. Mark Andrews had some
> uses as well that hopefully, he can share. If others have uses in mind that
> this solves I would love to hear about them.
>
>
> The reason I'm asking is not that I don't think there are theoretical use
> cases for what you are proposing.   I'm asking if there are actual use
> cases.   How would this be used in practice?   What can't someone do right
> now that they need to do and that this new technology enables?
>
>
> Specifically, there are two applications mentioned in the draft.
>
> 1. When a DNS server receives a dynamic DNS Update from a client
> registering its name after having received an IP address from an DHCP
> lease, the length of the DHCP lease can be tied to the length that the DNS
> address/PTR records stay in the authoritative server.
>
> 2. When an RFC 6763 DNS-SD service is registered (including PTR, SRV, &
> TXT records), these records can timeout according to the lease lifetime
> contained in the update lease EDNS(0) option.
>
> These are not theoretical. They solve practical problems that exist today.
> I think there are others associated with existing problems for sleeping
> devices and IoT devices that I need to research to more clearly answer your
> specific question but I think these two already fulfill that requirement.
>
> Tom
>
>
>