Re: [dhcwg] issues with draft-grochla-80211-dhcp-option-00

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

In my opinion, almost all "Vendor Specific" options in various
protocols are misnamed. Maybe "organizational" would be better. Of
course, vendors can use them, but lots of entities other than product
vendors have OUIs or the like. To take a hypothetical example, lets
say the an IETF WG specifies a cipher suite usable in 802.11. Cipher
suites in 802.11 can be specified by an OUI plus one byte. Just
because the IETF isn't a vendor of products, there is no reason it
shouldn't use the IETF OUI to create a code point to specify this
hypothetical cipher suite in 802.11 frames. In fact, this is used as
an example in RFC 5342.

Thanks,
Donald

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
>> Good answer to the first point, but I think that the second is still valid:
>> the option specified does seem to be a good candidate for VSO &
>> documentation via an Informational RFC to me.
>
> How is the IEEE a vendor?   I really don't see the problem here--whether this is informational or not, it's a perfectly cromulent application for a DHCP option, and it doesn't make sense for it to be a vendor option.
>