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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:10:40 +0900 (JST)

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: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:08:44 -0400

>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

---

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 10:07:05 -0400

Sorry to be a process-wonk...

>=> 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

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

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?)

---

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

---

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

> IPv6 problem that needs to be solved, this document is about how to

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

---

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.

---

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