Subject: [dhcwg] Call for review: draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-04.txt

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:51:52 +0000

There's a document going through the mif working group that defines a new DHCP option for configuring DNS resolvers.   The document allows the DHCP server to send the DHCP client a list of domains for which specific name servers should be used instead of the name servers configured in the DNS Recursive Name Server option.   It would be helpful if some DHC working group members could review the document to see if they can find any problems with it.   If you are interested in discussing the validity of the practice described in the document, dnsop or dnsext is probably the right place; if you are interested in making sure that it's a well-formed DHCP option that is clearly described and can be implemented in such a way that interoperability is likely, this is the place.

The draft is at:

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-04.txt

Thanks!

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:13:21 +0000

Hi, we were planning to update to -05 before soliciting dnsext/dnsop/dhc
comments.. here is the -05 as I have it currently updated after quite some
tsv-area comments. Please check out this -05 instead if you did not read -04
yet.

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-05.txt

Thanks,

                Teemu

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
ext Ted Lemon
Sent: 20. syyskuuta 2011 18:52
To: dhc WG     
Subject: [dhcwg] Call for review: draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-04.txt

There's a document going through the mif working group that defines a new
DHCP option for configuring DNS resolvers.   The document allows the DHCP
server to send the DHCP client a list of domains for which specific name
servers should be used instead of the name servers configured in the DNS
Recursive Name Server option.   It would be helpful if some DHC working
group members could review the document to see if they can find any problems
with it.   If you are interested in discussing the validity of the practice
described in the document, dnsop or dnsext is probably the right place; if
you are interested in making sure that it's a well-formed DHCP option that
is clearly described and can be implemented in such a way that
interoperability is likely, this is the place.

The draft is at:

Thanks!