Subject: [dhcwg] Re: DDNS-DHCP [2]: Allow for other identifying data in the DHCID RR?

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:19:57 -0700

Issues one and two are basically the same issue - should we extend DHCID to
make it work for things other than DHCP.   The answer is, flatly, no.   This
would be a disaster.

The reason is that DHCID specifies a DHCP-specific format for the hash.   If
you aren't doing DHCP, you don't have enough information to create a hash
that interoperates.   Discussion point one says "shouldn't we do this?"   The
answer is no.

Discussion point two says "here's how we should do this."   The problem is
that if you have other applications using the DHCID with different
information, then DHCID's intended use is broken - the DHCP server can't use
DHCID records it's inserted if some other thing is also inserting records,
because the DHCP server depends on the DHCID working correctly in update
prerequisites.

So either option 1 or option 2 breaks interoperability, and can't be allowed.

If some other application needs to do something similar to DHCID (I can't
think of any reason why one would, but stipulating that one would), it could
just define a new RRtype.   There is no shortage of RRtype codes.

Adding complexity to DHCID to support theoretical new protocols we haven't
even designed yet is a false economy - it breaks the DHCP/DNS interaction
model, and it does not add value.   It is a solution in search of a problem.

Simple Is Good.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 13:16:08 +0700

Date:        Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:19:57 -0700
    From:        Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | Issues one and two are basically the same issue - should we extend DHCID to
  | make it work for things other than DHCP.   The answer is, flatly, no.   This
  | would be a disaster.

Agreed.

kre

---

From: Mark Stapp <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:35:34 -0400

Thank you Ted - that's an excellent response.

We're trying to solve a specific problem, a problem we believe we 
understand. We took some steps towards generalizing the rr, in that we made 
the type codes within the rr data an iana-managed space, and described what 
it would take for someone to have a new code allocated. That's really all 
the generality that's justified by the experience we have right now.

-- Mark