Subject: Latest DNS/DHCP Interaction Drafts

From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 14:20:12 -0600

Mark, et al:

Is it safe to conclude that draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-01.txt and draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-02.txt have essentially editorial changes and that draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-option-01.txt has editorial changes AND the addition of the "N" bit for the client to request (and server to honor) the DDNS updates.

Thanks in advance.

- Bernie Volz

---

From: Mark Stapp <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 16:27:57 -0500

Bernie,

Yes. I tried to come up with "N"-bit language for the fqdn option that 
matched my recollection of the discussion the working-group had when it was 
proposed during a (somewhat) recent ietf. I'd received a couple of 
questions about the fqdn field in the option, and I tried to tighten up the 
language there too.

Ted Lemon sent me some suggestions about the last dhcid rr draft, and I 
tried to incorporate them for this round.

I still intend to add a picture or two to the resolution draft, as I think 
that a diagram would help folks unfamiliar with the discussion understand 
the kinds of problems that can occur. I haven't received questions or 
suggestions about that draft in some months, so I'd like to infer that it's 
getting close.

-- Mark

At 02:20 PM 3/8/01 -0600, Bernie Volz (EUD) wrote:

>Mark, et al:
>
>Is it safe to conclude that draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-01.txt and 
>draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-02.txt have essentially editorial changes and 
>that draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-option-01.txt has editorial changes AND the 
>addition of the "N" bit for the client to request (and server to honor) 
>the DDNS updates.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>- Bernie Volz