BIND 10 #2229: DHCP DDNS Requirements Document

[BIND 10 Development]

#2229: DHCP DDNS Requirements Document
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:  stephen
  stephen                            |                Status:  closed
                       Type:  task   |             Milestone:  Sprint-
                   Priority:         |  DHCP-20121004
  medium                             |            Resolution:  complete
                  Component:  dhcp   |             Sensitive:  0
                   Keywords:         |           Sub-Project:  DHCP
            Defect Severity:  N/A    |  Estimated Difficulty:  0
Feature Depending on Ticket:         |           Total Hours:  0
        Add Hours to Ticket:  0      |
                  Internal?:  0      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by stephen):

 * status:  reviewing => closed
 * resolution:   => complete


Comment:

 > The first paragraph of 2.3 conflicts with 2.3.1.2 item 2.
 >
 > In theory one should only use a DHCID record and should share that
 record between v4 and v6 instances. In practice sharing the record is
 difficult and we may choose to allow the administrator to pick one for v4
 and one for v6. In addition we may need to consider transition strategies
 for those who are using TXT records now. Any discussion of transition
 doesn't need to occur as part of the requirements however.
 Corrected.  The first paragraph now explicitly states that this is under
 the control of the administrator.

 > I believe 2.3.2.4 might be more clearly stated as:
 > If explicitly requested the server MUST be able to remove DNS entries
 created for a lease when a lease expires [or is released] even if the
 server is no longer responsible for the address range that includes the
 lease.
 That is improved wording, and the requirement now uses it.

 > The bracketed text would also add the requirement to be able to handle
 release requests. We may choose not to do that in which case perhaps it
 shouldn't be a MUST but instead a MAY.
 I've left it as "MUST" - it will give more flexibility.  We can always add
 to switches - one for expirations, and one for releases.

 > We may wish to make 2.3.3.1 subject to administrator discretion. In some
 cases doing a DDNS update is convenient as it will help to correct
 imperfections that may occur.
 Changed as suggested.

 After these changes, the document is as version 7.

 > After that and whatever the author wishes to do with the other comments
 and suggestions the requirements can be marked as done.
 The ticket has been marked as complete.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2229#comment:9>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development