Re: [mif] New Charter Items

[Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 2, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> - An NTP server option for RAs, so that DNSSEC can be used for the lookup.
>> - A PVD Name option for RAs, so that we can tell hosts what PVD to look up.
> 
> I thought we already got a WG I-D that is able to carry required name information if needed - maybe not in the "format" at the moment folks want it to be but it is up to WG to steer the content, right?

Right.

> 
>> - What PVD information can be stored in the DNS and how it will be retrieved.
> 
> While DNS is a good thing and actually a good idea in the context we are discussing here, few things to think in addition to those already found in the meeting minutes: does not quite work if DNS is not there and going to DNS all time even for the simplies form of PVD configuration seems a bit unefficient. These are not really concern of homenet type setups but maybe for other deployments where links come and go.

This mechanism would not be used for implicit PVDs (which I think have at least 80% of the benefit of explicit ones), only for explicit PVDs, and perhaps only for explicit PVDs that have a flag set saying that hosts should seek more information (?).  Presumably, if a host could not reach the DNS to find additional information about an explicit PVD, it would treat the PVD like an implicit one.  

I think it is a question for any two-step method, what to do if the first step configures and explicit PVD, but the second step can't be completed and/or returns an error?

Margaret