Subject: RE: Use of DHCID in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-dns-12

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:09:28 -0700

I wasn't at the IETF meeting in Adelaide, but I was told that there was some
substantial discussion of breaking this draft into two separate drafts. Mark
Stapp has mentioned in a private message that he and some others are
working now on deciding how to proceed. 

As far as the DHCID record goes, there was a draft submitted by a member
of the dnsext working group, but for reasons we don't know it was allowed
to expire. Mark is in the process of submitting a new draft to define a
DHCID record, which will presumably be much like the earlier draft. 

The use of the KEY RR caused much consternation in the dnsext working
group, and I think was vigorously opposed by some of its members, though
I can't restate the discussion. Hopefully Mark will be able to comment on
the type of RR to use soon.

One good reason for associating an ID RR of some sort with PTR records
has to do with the failover protocol, which is in draft form right now, but
quite solid. Failover partners want to know who has been responsible for
updating name servers for the express purpose of not duplicating updates
when one or the other handles lease transactions. The use of an ID RR, 
along with a knowledge of the partner's state, makes it easy to decide if
a particular partner should perform an update, especially when the client
has exercised the FQDN option and done the A RR itself.

Richard
	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Bernie Volz [SMTP:[email-masked]]
	Sent:	Sunday, July 02, 2000 8:49 PM
	To:	DHCPv4 discussion list
	Cc:	[email-masked]'
	Subject:	RE: Use of DHCID in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-dns-12

	I think some previous discussion had suggested the use of the TXT
record
	instead? But, I could be wrong.

	Perhaps Mark Stapp will jump in here and answer some of these
issues.

	- Bernie

	-----Original Message-----
	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
	Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 10:02 AM
	To: DHCPv4 discussion list
	Subject: RE: Use of DHCID in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-dns-12

	Thanks for the reply. I do understand the concept of who owns each
record.
	I just didn't see a purpose for the DHCID associated with the PTR,
other
	than as you suggested, it being a mechanism for an administrator to
try and
	tell who updated the record. Although, if it is "scrambled" via a
hash
	algorithm, I'm still not sure how useful it would be.

	I guess I was just looking for a more definitive answer, like "oh
that's
	there because in the next version of the draft you'll see...." or
"Yes you
	are correct, and there really isn't a need for a DHCID record
associated
	with a PTR record."

	Presently, since BIND8 DNS doesn't support DHCID (at least to my
	knowledge), does anyone see a problem with using the KEY RR in place
of the
	DHCID which was the proposed method in a previous version of the
subject
	draft? At least that way a DHCP server capable of dynamic DNS
updates could
	be developed now that would interface to any BIND 8 DNS server.

	Jack Corcoran
	[email-masked]
	 Ph  607-752-5570,  T/L 852-5570, FAX: 607-752-5421

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 20:13:00 -0700

> has exercised the FQDN option and done the A RR itself.

I don't understand why this is considered useful.   You can avoid
updating the zone by just making the prerequisite for the update be
that the PTR record not contain the same information.   I think BIND
may even optimize out the update if it doesn't cause a change.   So I
don't see how it helps to put the ID on the PTR.

			       _MelloN_