Subject: Domain Name Auto-Registration for Plugged-in IPv6 Nodes

From: Hiroshi KITAMURA <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:30:31 +0900 (JST)

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]

Hi All,

I've presented 
"Domain Name Auto-Registration for Plugged-in IPv6 Nodes"
<draft-kitamura-ipv6-name-auto-reg-02.txt> at today's session.

Chairs asked me to send e-mail to the mailing-list to confirm
that this item moves to WG item.

So, if there are any objections, please let us know.

Thank you.

Hiroshi

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:07:05 -0400

Sorry to be a process-wonk...

At 1:26 PM +0200 7/18/02, Francis Dupont wrote:
>=> this is not an IPv6 WG item for two reasons:

No argument on that, I am unfamiliar with IPv6 charter.

>  - at the previous meeting there was an agreement to put it in the
>    DNSEXT WG.

But in the DNSEXT charter this text exists:

"Issues surrounding the operation of DNS, recommendations concerning 
the configuration of DNS servers, and other issues with the use of 
the protocol are out of this Working Group's charter."

Granted, this also exists:

"Broad topics under consideration in DNSEXT are ... adjustments to 
address the requirements of IPv6 addressing."  But this draft does 
not describe "adjustments" to the DNS protocol.

Perhaps the chairs should shed light on what led the draft to us.

>BTW I really like this proposal and annoyed by the obvious lack of
>attention it received.

I did read the draft before arriving in Yokohama as I am in need of 
learning IPv6, but there was just nothing DNS-related upon which I 
could comment.  Ergo, I wouldn't have thought to mention anything 
about it on this mailing list.

The draft describes a clean use of dynamic update, as per existing 
specifications.  The concerns are whether the network elements will 
support the IPv6 needs.  My knee-jerk reaction is to examine what 
happens if the elements go down, will this disrupt network activity, 
will it be able to recover as stateful elements recover?  (These 
aren't DNS concerns.)

I do like that this proposal requires no adjustment to DNS.  I am not 
sure that this is a valuable observation.

I would suggest that this proposal shares more issues with DHCP than 
DNS, granted that in DHCP the addresses are being assigned and in 
this, the addresses are being observed.  Either way, an address is 
bound to an interface and the result recorded in DNS.  Either way, 
the issues about failure, recovery, and possible cross-element 
cooperation are the same.  (How far off-topic am I now?)

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 03:50:59 +0200 (CEST)

> The right place for this document is a DNS working group, there is NO
> IPv6 problem that needs to be solved, this document is about how to
> add information to DNS.

Agreed.

The more general question is whether DNSEXT should have the responsibility
to drive the overall approach and design to registering and updating
the DNS. I don't have a ready answer but merely note that this issue today
spans multiple working groups which makes hard for at least me to see
the overall design.

Do folks have pros and cons for doing this in DNSEXT?

Note that this does NOT imply that the components of the design (such as
DHCP specifics of updating the DNS) would be under DNSEXT, merely the
overall approach and design.

  Erik

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 04:28:02 +0200

=> the IPv6 charter is a catch-all...

   
   
=> so you argue for the DNSOP WG? This is not unreasonable but
the proposal has nothing to do with DNS servers.

   specifications.

=> I fully agree.

=> IMHO this point is a good point for the proposal.

   I would suggest that this proposal shares more issues with DHCP than 
   DNS, granted that in DHCP the addresses are being assigned and in 
   this, the addresses are being observed.

=> this is an argument for zero-conf WG... The problem is we have to put
it somewhere and not to throw it from WG to WG. So I believe we should
stay at the first decision (it is an information/BCP so it doesn't really
matter if it exactly fits in the charter or not... I'm more interested
by the comments about the proposal itself).

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:58:08 -0400

>Do folks have pros and cons for doing this in DNSEXT?

I'm puzzled that there is a desire to have this become a DNSEXT WG 
item.  I think this technique can be something applied site by site 
(as kre suggested) and that there's no real interop issue.

Note that I am commenting only on admission to the WG, not on the 
merits of the approach.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:52:06 -0400

>the proposal has nothing to do with DNS servers.

Well, the draft doesn't address the operation of a name server 
either.  The DNSOP charter is a bit dated, but from what I read it's 
a stretch to place this document there too.

>by the comments about the proposal itself).

I don't think that this draft needs a WG, if it is destined for 
informational (or even experimental).  There's no need to force it 
into an existing WG.