Re: [homenet] [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