Skip to main content

An EDNS(0) option to negotiate Leases on DNS Updates


Éric Vyncke

No Objection

Jim Guichard
John Scudder
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
(Andrew Alston)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

Erik Kline
Comment (2023-08-07) Sent
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-dnssd-update-lease-08
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:

* "Handling Ballot Positions":

## Nits

### S5.2

* "a Registration a Refresh"
  -> "a Registration or a Refresh"

### S5.2.1

* "send a Refresh messages" -> "message" singular?
Paul Wouters
(was Discuss) Yes
Comment (2023-08-09) Sent for earlier
[note: Resolved my own discuss now that I see that deleting can be done using a delete command using dns-sd-srp]

  The Update Lease option SHOULD specify a time interval that is no
        shorter than 1800 seconds (30 minutes). Requestors MAY specify a
        shorter lease if they anticipate that the records being updated
        will change sooner than 30 minutes.

I feel this section tries to impose a restriction that it immediately breaks.
As implementer there is nothing I can do with this section except ignore this

        If the Update Lease of a resource record elapses without being
        refreshed, the server MUST NOT return the expired record in
        answers to queries. The server MAY delete the record from its

The meaning here is open to interpretation. If the record is in the "database",
one could assume it is also being served. And if the record must not be returned
why is there a MAY to keep it in a "database". I think the second sentence is better
just removed and left to implementations to handle.

NIT: [I-D.ietf-dnssd-srp]  is not pointing to the latest version
Éric Vyncke
Jim Guichard
No Objection
John Scudder
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Comment (2023-08-09) Sent
I concur with Warren's comment (and by extension, Paul's confusion).  I would go further and question use of SHOULD here, at least because I have no idea what the threat to interoperability is if I don't do what it says.  My gut feeling is that this shouldn't use SHOULD (or any of those key words) at all.

That there are three of us asking questions about this tempts me to make it a DISCUSS, but this falls just short of something for which I want to hold up publication.
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2023-07-12) Not sent
Thank you to Shivan Sahib for the SECDIR review.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment (2023-08-09) Sent
Thank you for writing this document. I'd also like to explicitly thank David Lawrence for the comprehensive DNSDIR review ( ), and for the followup during a natural disaster!

Like Paul Wouters I find the "the Update Lease interval should be at least 30 minutes, unless you really want it to be shorter" text to be suboptimal, but I do understand what you are trying to say.
How about something like: "By default, the minimum Update Lease option SHOULD be no shorter than 1800 seconds (30 minutes). If the requestor anticipates that the records being updated will change sooner than 30 minutes it MAY choose a shorter interval. Requestors that expect the updated records to be relatively static SHOULD request appropriately longer leases."
This says basically the same thing, but the "By default" clause seems to make it less jarring. As this is a "No Objection" ballot, feel free to ignore this suggestion...
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Andrew Alston Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Not sent

Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2023-08-04) Not sent
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-dnssd-update-lease-08

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Dale Worley for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

Martin Duke Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2023-08-08) Not sent
thanks to Brian Trammell for the TSVART review.