BIND 10 #2229: DHCP DDNS Requirements Document

[BIND 10 Development]

#2229: DHCP DDNS Requirements Document
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:  UnAssigned
  stephen                            |                Status:  reviewing
                       Type:  task   |             Milestone:  Sprint-
                   Priority:         |  DHCP-20120917
  medium                             |            Resolution:
                  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      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by sar):

 2.1
 As I recall we discussed the merits of having the zone server information
 tied to the range but I don't recall if we came to a consensus on it.  If
 any of these comments go against such a consensus they can be dropped.

 2.1.3 would seem to connect a server to a given address range.  This
 probably works well for the reverse entries but may not work well for the
 forward entries.  There may be reasons for clients that get addresses in a
 single range to be served by different DNS servers - for example a worker
 may bring their laptop to a different office but still wish to use the
 same name as if they were in their own office.  It might be better to
 allow the administrator to define a set of zones with associated servers
 and keys.

 Determining how the timeout and retry values are set may not be under the
 control of the DHCP code.  In the current (4.2.x) code, the DNS client
 code makes this decision, in the previous code (4.1.x) the DHCP code had
 more control over such things.  In general it gets set to a default and
 doesn't change.  It doesn't seem necessary to allow it to be configured.

 Is there any specific reason for allowing only 1 backup server?  While
 this is probably sufficient it is a change from the 4.x code and including
 any reasoning for the specific value would be useful.

 Is there any need or desire for GSSAPI support?

 2.2.1.4 & 2.2.1.5
 The use of should in these statements allow a server to ignore the flags
 but do not give guidance on when it should or should not ignore the flags.
 There should be some configuration options to guide the server in
 determining what to do.

 2.2.1.10 & 2.2.2.5
 Presumably there will be some way (for example the hooks option) for the
 administrator to set the host name for the client.  In addition there may
 be cases where the administrator chooses not to include information about
 a client in the DNS.  Is there a reason to always include a name?

 2.3.1.2
 This procedure does not allow for administrator input on the process.  In
 the current (4.x) code the administrator may determine if the DHCP server
 does conflict detection (checks to see if the name is already in use and
 if the TXT record is as expected) or not.  Performing conflict detection
 (as in 4703) avoids one client or server from interfering with another but
 it also makes it more difficult to recover from some problems, such as a
 partial removal due to problems in the network or on the DNS server.

 2.3.3.1
 There seems to be a typo in this statement.  Should "by now" be "and no"
 or something similar?

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2229#comment:4>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development