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

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:08:44 -0400

At 7:10 PM +0900 7/16/02, [email-masked] wrote:
>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.

Although I like the idea (at least superficially), I don't know why 
this would be a WG item for a DNS working group.

The plusses of this approach is that it provides a modular solution 
to registering IPv6 addresses in DNS.  The modules are designed with 
the expertise to do the job, leaving DNS to keep to the task of just 
serving data as it does now.  The minuses is that any state being 
held in a detector and registrar must be maintained across device 
failures.  (Such a short analysis is bound to have holes.)

But as far as whether this is a DNS document, I'm not sure.  The 
process uses existing DNS features (secured dynamic update) and 
specifies default names that are meaningful to the application at 
hand.  The draft does not introduce any modification to the way in 
which the DNS protocol operates.

It seems that this would fit into an IPv6 work group (where the 
expertise to handle the IPv6 issues lay).  When I originally read 
this, I assume the ipv6 in the draft name meant it was destined for 
draft-ietf-ipv6... eventually.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

--
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: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 23:04:56 +0900

Date:        Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:08:44 -0400
    From:        Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <a05111b03b959c89b61f0@[133.93.76.241]>

  | I don't know why this would be a WG item for a DNS working group.

I agree with that.   This looks more like a description of an interesting
technique which can might make life easier for many sites if made
available - but that's just software.   There's no particular reason any
two sites should adopt the same approach (nor why they shouldn't).

If this was to be a recommended method, I'd be concerned about some of the
assumptions (like expecting a manually configured address to necessarily
have an entry in the DNS, or that a manually configured address wouldn't
look identical to an EUI-64 auto-configured one - in fact I have both of those).

But, as a "here is what we do that works for us" doc, it looks fine.
No need for any work to be done on it (in dnsext or ipv6), just request
that it get published as informational (which is what was suggested in
the meeting).  I doubt there will be any problem, provided that it is clear
that documenting a useful technique that can be used is all that it is
claiming to do.

kre

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17:20:11 +0900 (JST)

Edward and Robert,

Thank you for your comments.
I'm very happy to hear that both of you like and support my idea.

> this would be a WG item for a DNS working group.

There are clear reasons why I propose my idea at DNSEXT WG.

Probably, I have to start to explain the history of the activities of
this idea.
I have already presented my idea at IPv6 WG in 51st London meeting.
And, chairs of IPv6 WG suggested me to continue this activities at
DNSEXT WG.

Olafur was there when I presented my idea at IPv6 WG.
Chairs of IPv6 WG negotiated with Olafur at there.
And, Olafur accepted to deal with this activities at DNSEXT WG.

So, the "Domain Name Auto-Registration" issues was redirected from
IPv6 WG to DNSEXT WG.

# If necessary, I think Olafur will add some comments to my explanation.

Anyway, I don't like to become a lost child.
Please keep discussing on this issue at DNSEXT WG.

Frankly speaking, my idea "Domain Name Auto-Registration" should be
discussed at either DNSEXT WG or IPv6 WG.

As I explained above, I think the decision whether which WG discuss on
my idea is done. So, please discuss on my idea at DNSEXT WG.

> failures.  (Such a short analysis is bound to have holes.)

Thank you for your analysis.
Let me improve the minuses that you show in the next draft.

> which the DNS protocol operates.

Absolutely. That is one of sale points of my idea.
Anyone who want to use my proposed idea can use it right now.

I do not mandate to use my idea.
To use or not depends on site policies.
Those who want to use can use it.

So, the goal of my I-D is to be published as an Informational RFC.

> draft-ietf-ipv6... eventually.

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 23:04:56 +0900
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

> that documenting a useful technique that can be used is all that it is

I think my idea must be reviewed by DNS expertise. 
This is one of reasons why I ask to discuss on this issues at DNSEXT WG.

> kre

If my explanation is not enough and you still have any objections,
please let us know.

Thank you.

Hiroshi

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:26:13 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> this is not an IPv6 WG item for two reasons:
 - at the previous meeting there was an agreement to put it in the
   DNSEXT WG.
 - don't forget the words of our AD: IPv6 is for today. So we should
   not send everything with a 6 in it to the IPv6 WG but should
   put IPv6 DNS stuff into DNS WGs.
BTW I really like this proposal and annoyed by the obvious lack of
attention it received.

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:52:28 -0400

>So, the goal of my I-D is to be published as an Informational RFC.

Ahhhh, this is different than having this document become a DNSEXT WG 
item.  (I'll leave it to the chairs to discuss [or not] what it means 
to make a document a WG item here.)

So, basically, you just would like feedback from the DNS folks. 
That's fine, and apparently Olafur is giving approval to discuss the 
document on this list.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

---

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:23:47 -0400

>And, Olafur accepted to deal with this activities at DNSEXT WG.

This is correct.
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.

>Please keep discussing on this issue at DNSEXT WG.

There are 3 possibilities the working group can take with any document
that asks for admission:
         adopts the document as standards track document
         processes this document for informational/experimental publication
         the WG tells the authors this is a bad idea and why.

>So, the goal of my I-D is to be published as an Informational RFC.

This formal request to have the working group process the document as
informational/experimental.
I will post a formal question to the working group about taking this
document on.

         Olafur