Re: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Wed, 23 January 2002 17:07 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16558 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:07:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA05899 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:07:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04452; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:57:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04424 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:57:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16222 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:57:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-149-85.cisco.com [161.44.149.85]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA03693 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:56:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020123115503.00b984b0@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:57:09 -0500
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6
In-Reply-To: <5890000.1011774024@elgar>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020122144616.036c6a28@funnel.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020122144616.036c6a28@funnel.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

I propose we move Domain Search Option and Domain Name Server Option out of 
the base DHCPv6 spec, as well...

- Ralph


At 09:20 AM 1/23/2002 +0100, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
>I totally agree with this. Escpecially the point of slowing down the 
>acceptance process is worth to mention. A lot of IPv6 networks are in the 
>deployment process or will be deployed in the near future and DHCPv6 is 
>needed for this deployment, i.e. there should be a standard.
>
>Martin
>
>
>
>--On Dienstag, Januar 22, 2002 14:55:41 -0500 Ralph Droms 
><rdroms@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>We've recently experienced a proliferation of proposed and defined
>>options for DHCPv6.  Initially, the WG agreed to publish all options that
>>were defined at the time the base spec was completed in the same doc.
>>I'm having second thoughts about that decision.  Here's what I'm thinking:
>>
>>* The new options are adding more weight to
>>    an already hefty document
>>* Keeping all the options in one doc make
>>    updating any one option more complicated
>>* Reviewing all of these options will slow
>>    down the acceptance process
>>
>>I propose that we put a moratorium on adding any new options to
>>draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt, and move any non-essential options out of
>>draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt into individual drafts.  The definition of
>>"essential" is open to discussion; here's a first pass at a list of the
>>options to retain in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt:
>>
>>* DHCP unique identifier option
>>* Identity association option
>>* IA Address option
>>* Requested Temporary Addresses (RTA) Option
>>* Option request option
>>* Preference option
>>* Elapsed Time
>>* Client message option
>>* Server message option
>>* Authentication option
>>* Server unicast option
>>* Domain Search Option
>>* Domain Name Server Option
>>* Status Code Option
>>
>>- Ralph
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>dhcwg mailing list
>>dhcwg@ietf.org
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>
>
>Martin Stiemerling
>
>NEC Europe Ltd. -- Network Laboratories      Martin.Stiemerling@ccrle.nec.de
>IPv4: http://www.ccrle.nec.de             IPv6: http://www.ipv6.ccrle.nec.de


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