Subject: Fwd: [dhcwg] update on dhcp/dns drafts' progress

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 08:53:13 -0500

The dnsext WG will also be interested in these revised drafts...

- Ralph

>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:34:17 -0500
>To: [email-masked]
>From: Mark Stapp <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [dhcwg] update on dhcp/dns drafts' progress
>
>Folks,
>
>The advance summaries that several authors have sent about their drafts 
>have been pretty useful, and Ralph has prodded me to produce something 
>similar about the dhcp/dns drafts. The current versions are:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-05.txt
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-option-05.txt
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-06.txt
>
>History
>
>The ddns-resolution and fqdn-option drafts last-called in October last 
>year. The related dhcid rr draft also last-called, after some last-minute 
>procedural hijinks almost caused it to be lost. I responded to some 
>post-last-call comments from Thomas Narten in November. It seemed by the 
>March 2002 ietf that the various working-group chairs and ads were in 
>synch. By the summer, I was concerned that we hadn't heard from the iesg, 
>and I asked Ralph to try to help me understand what was going on. In July, 
>a significant issue was raised. Ralph, Olafur, and I agreed that we should 
>address it, and I published revisions to the ddns-resolution and dhcid-rr 
>drafts.
>
>The Issue
>
>The evolution of the dhcid-rr draft led to a situation in which details 
>about the data within the dhcid-rr were present in two different drafts. 
>History is to blame here, as usual. Years ago, there was a very simple 
>dhcid-rr specification. It said, basically, "This RR holds binary data. If 
>you want to know how to generate this data, go look in the dhc wg's 
>ddns-resolution draft."
>
>The dnsext folks were not satisfied with this approach, and over time more 
>and more details about the dhcid rr data leaked from the ddns-resolution 
>draft into the dhcid-rr draft. By the summer, that had led to parallel 
>language in the two specifications. The wg chairs were concerned that that 
>would lead to implementation problems.
>
>The Current Drafts
>
>The current versions of the drafts have moved all of the specification of 
>the dhcid rr data into the dhcid-rr draft. The use of the dhcid-rr by 
>updaters remains in the ddns-resolution draft.
>
>The dhcid rr includes a 16-bit value specifying the source of the 
>client-identity information. The original proposal for the RR proposed 
>that this value would take on one of three values: the value zero if the 
>identifier was the client's MAC address, the value 0xffff was reserved, 
>and any other value would be the option number of the dhcp option that 
>supplied the identifier (like the client-id option number). There was 
>concern that this relied on non-overlapping v4 and v6 option 
>number-spaces. The current draft specifies that this field holds an 
>IANA-managed number. Four values are allocated initially: zero for the MAC 
>address, one for the dhcpv4 client-id option, two for the dhcpv6 duid, and 
>0xffff is reserved.
>
>There is a slot at the end of the Atlanta agenda for discussion about 
>these drafts, if that's necessary.
>
>-- Mark
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

--
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: Mark Stapp <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:37:15 -0500

Olafur has reminded me that I should point out that the IANA considerations 
section has changed in the most recent version of the dhcid RR draft. It 
reflects the decision to move to an enumerated list of types of client 
data. The current draft is:

-- Mark