--On Wednesday, 27 September, 2006 14:33 -0400 Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > IMHO this is fundamentally a very dubious option because DNS > is the authoritative source of name-to-address mappings, and > the way to find out what DNS name is assigned to a particular > network address is to query the DNS for PTR records at the > appropriate in-addr.arpa or ip6.arpa locations. >... > Also, one should be careful to avoid making the assumption > that a host has a single FQDN, or even a distinguished FQDN, > or that an FQDN maps to at most one host. None of these is > true in practice. Ok. We are now up to two independent issues. Perhaps it is useful to identify them separately, either to focus discussion or to swiftly send this document back to the relevant WG (see below) for further consideration and rewriting. I recommend the second, if only because the IETF list is a lousy place to either edit document or to resolve specific design issues. Issue 1: Even if the option is desirable and the motivation for it is clear, the specification is inadequate in definitions and specificity in this particular document. I believe that there is no longer any real controversy on that matter and that the issue suggests, and perhaps requires, ending the Last Call and returning the document to the authors. Further kicking of that dead horse on this list is unlikely to accomplish much of anything, IMO. Issue 2: We should, IMO, be taking the transition of DHCP from IPv4 to IPv6 as an opportunity --I would hope a mandate-- to review old options to see if they have been proven in use and have sufficient mandate from user communities, whether they can be combined or better optimized, and whether they are appropriate in an IPv6 world. Whether one agrees with Keith's conclusions (and not just the ones I've quoted above for context) or not, I think he is clearly suggesting the right questions. Those questions deserve careful consideration and response (with "we did this before" or "we are already on that path" not being considered a proper response). Certainly the charter of the DHC WG doesn't contain "mindlessly move options from v4 to v6". This is up to the ADs and relevant WG Chairs, but, IMO, given the issues DHC charter and other, the right WG to review the mandate for this proposal (and Keith's comments) would be one involved in DNS and DNS usage. My instinct is like Keith's conclusion: I'd like to see one "return FQDN" option, possibly with some syntax to specify "don't have a clue about the hostname", rather than a bunch of options to return various pieces of domain names. There may be perfectly good reasons to not do that but it seems to me that those reasons need to be in the province of either DNS-related WGs or of some group(s) in the Applications Area that actually has to _use_ this stuff, not simply defaulting to these options because the DHC WG (clearly) has the ability to define something or has done so before. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf