Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet Mask Sub-optiondie

On Mar 18, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Expanding on Ted's theme a little - if we're going to consider  
> extensions to
> DHCP that can automate the process of configuring the DHCP server,  
> we ought
> to take a little time to consider other, similar extensions and  
> define them
> all at once rather than one at a time...

Best is the enemy of good enough, so I don't think we should delay  
forever if there is some demand for this functionality.   This is  
certainly something that would be optional to implement, so I don't  
think it's a problem to define a standard for it.   I mentioned the  
more detailed option style because it's an obvious enhancement, but  
this really isn't a very complicated use case - I don't think we're  
going to come up with anything revolutionary here if we wait.

So my personal feeling is that using the CSR format is sufficient,  
unless someone has a better idea, and that if there is demand for  
this we should do it.   To me the big question is whether there's  
demand for it.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg