Re: [homenet] [dhcwg] WGLC started -- draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12

Thanks Bernie, in any case for raising this. It is always good information
to process and think of carefully before bringing any conclusion.
Yours,
Daniel

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 1:46 PM Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

> Regarding RSOO, that’s fine if it doesn’t meet your needs. Just wanted to
> raise it as it probably isn’t considered as often as it should be.
>
>
>
>    - Bernie
>
>
>
> *From: *Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 1:11 PM
> *To: *Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> *Cc: *Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, int-area@ietf.org <int-area@ietf.org>,
> dhcwg@ietf.org <dhcwg@ietf.org>, dns-privacy@ietf.org <
> dns-privacy@ietf.org>, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>,
> homenet@ietf.org <homenet@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [dhcwg] WGLC started --
> draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Thank you all for the feedbacks. I will perform the editorial once we have
> settled the terminology.
>
> Regarding the use of a DHCP Relay, we could of course make a use case of
> it, but I believe it would go beyond the simplicity of the targeted
> architecture and I would rather not consider this as RSOO enabled.
>
>
>
> Yours,
> Daniel
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 3:10 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
> Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
>     > On May 5, 2021, at 11:44 AM, Michael Richardson <
> mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
>     > wrote:
>     >> The end user might suffer slightly by having locally served reverse
>     >> names that are no longer connected: they should obsolete that zone
>     >> when they realize that their PD hasn't been renewed, until such
> time,
>     >> (if it was a flash renumber), they would be right to think that they
>     >> legitimately control them.
>
>     > In practice I don’t think this is an issue. The reverse lookup is
>     > usually triggered by receipt of a message from an IP address, so as
>     > long as the IP address is still in use internally, the presence of
> the
>     > reverse zone is wanted. When the address changes, the old zone
> becomes
>     > obsolete whether it continues to be served or not. The likelihood of
>     > the zone being re-allocated to some other network for which the
>     > original network will then do a reverse lookup is very small, so I
>     > don’t think there’s any reason to be concerned about this.
>
> I agree with you completely.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Daniel Migault
>
> Ericsson
>

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson