> On Aug 24, 2018, at 9:54 AM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > On Aug 24, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Tom Pusateri <pusat...@bangj.com > <mailto:pusat...@bangj.com>> wrote: >> Yes, it was intended to be more general than for service registration. It’s >> directly applicable to name registration for IP addresses. I can add a >> section on other uses if more motivation is desired. Mark Andrews had some >> uses as well that hopefully, he can share. If others have uses in mind that >> this solves I would love to hear about them. > > The reason I'm asking is not that I don't think there are theoretical use > cases for what you are proposing. I'm asking if there are actual use cases. > How would this be used in practice? What can't someone do right now that > they need to do and that this new technology enables?
Specifically, there are two applications mentioned in the draft. 1. When a DNS server receives a dynamic DNS Update from a client registering its name after having received an IP address from an DHCP lease, the length of the DHCP lease can be tied to the length that the DNS address/PTR records stay in the authoritative server. 2. When an RFC 6763 DNS-SD service is registered (including PTR, SRV, & TXT records), these records can timeout according to the lease lifetime contained in the update lease EDNS(0) option. These are not theoretical. They solve practical problems that exist today. I think there are others associated with existing problems for sleeping devices and IoT devices that I need to research to more clearly answer your specific question but I think these two already fulfill that requirement. Tom
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
