Subject: [dns-dir] Dynamic DNS Updates with Leases

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 22:12:23 -0800

Directorate,

As you may know, I am shepherding the set of Bonjour specifications - 
mostly as informational documents to describe what has been implemented 
by Apple and others. We picked out one of the documents for PS (the 
address collision detection document), and I am considering this one as 
well (it's a really short document):

http://files.dns-sd.org/draft-sekar-dns-ul.txt

This document essentially adds a "lease time" to a dynamic dns update. 
It is an important feature for Bonjour, but is generally applicable - 
and something that I believe has been brought up before in dnsext. I 
have a couple of questions (1) Is this generally applicable in a 
non-Bonjour environment, and (2) is this something we should publish on 
the standards track within dnsext?

Thanks,

- Mark

_______________________________________________
dns-dir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 03:14:37 -0500

> the standards track within dnsext?

Also known as the "time bomb" feature.  Proponants during past cycles
have grown mysteriously quiet when asked what happens if there's a
network partition while the bomb is ticking.

Bonjour is a LAN protocol, so Bonjour ignores the issue.
_______________________________________________
dns-dir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:18:30 -0600

On 4 nov 2008, at 00.12, Mark Townsley wrote:

> As you may know, I am shepherding the set of Bonjour specifications  
> - mostly as informational documents to describe what has been  
> implemented by Apple and others. We picked out one of the documents  
> for PS (the address collision detection document), and I am  
> considering this one as well (it's a really short document):
>
> This document essentially adds a "lease time" to a dynamic dns  
> update. It is an important feature for Bonjour, but is generally  
> applicable - and something that I believe has been brought up before  
> in dnsext. I have a couple of questions (1) Is this generally  
> applicable in a non-Bonjour environment, and (2) is this something  
> we should publish on the standards track within dnsext?

I had a look at this, and thought a bit on this, and I think the  
answer is "yes". It would be a good thing to have this.

    Patrik

---

From: Roy Arends <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:31:10 -0600

I'm not able to join the DNS-DIR lunch/meeting today unfortunately.  
I'm in another meeting that takes more time than I realized.

Regards,

Roy

---

From: Roy Arends <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:00:45 -0600

> I'm in another meeting that takes more time than I realized.

So I made it after all.

Roy

---

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:28:49 -0600

Just an observation: This seems to be a trend towards moving to using  
the DNS as a control plane for other applications (also see Stewards  
request for the proxy wakeup EDNS option).

I have no particular value judgement, because I do not yet oversee the  
implications.

--Olaf

On Nov 17, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

>> applicable - and something that I believe has been brought up  
>> before in dnsext. I have a couple of questions (1) Is this  
>> generally applicable in a non-Bonjour environment, and (2) is this  
>> something we should publish on the standards track within dnsext?
>

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:47:19 -0500

There have been number of proposals in the past to include features similar
to this in DNS. Some implementors of DNS servers have pushed hard back
because this is extra work for them.
IMHO that is selfish argument to minimize their work, given this keeps coming
up and we have seen serious "name pollution" in dynamically updated zones
this warrants a second look.

Disclaimer: because of 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99mar/I-D/draft-ietf-dnsind-dddd-00.txt
I'm biased :-)

         Olafur