[dhcwg] "draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-01" - Unix and Microsoft DHCP terminology
Carsten Strotmann <carsten@strotmann.de> Wed, 05 March 2014 15:28 UTC
Return-Path: <cas@strotmann.de>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921231A01CA for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:28:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.209
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ygWWHQHlseDx for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:28:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from csgate3.strotmann.de (cstrotm-1-pt.tunnel.tserv5.lon1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f08:f1d::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E09BA1A0122 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:28:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from raspidev.home.strotmann.de (unknown [IPv6:2a01:198:2b6:0:ba27:ebff:fe04:fb25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by csgate3.strotmann.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6200850EC for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 16:27:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: by raspidev.home.strotmann.de (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 4032882B08; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 16:27:53 +0100 (CET)
From: Carsten Strotmann <carsten@strotmann.de>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.9.5; emacs 24.3.1
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:27:52 +0100
Message-ID: <86ob1kmzrb.fsf@strotmann.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/3AQ-8TU50YkTileUCOEM1d14Zek
Subject: [dhcwg] "draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-01" - Unix and Microsoft DHCP terminology
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 15:28:02 -0000
Bridging the terminology chasm between "Unix DHCP" and "Microsoft DHCP"
I'm not sure if it is in scope (no pun intended) of this document to
bridge between the different DHCP related terminology used in the
Microsoft Windows networking world and in the Unix/Internet world.
The aim of the document is to document current DHCP deployment
scenarios, and Microsoft DHCP is a large part of the current deployed
DHCP.
Besides the "shared subnet / multinet" example mentioned in my comments
to "draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-01", there are some more terms ("scope",
"reservation") used differently in both camps that don't match and are
often a source of confusion.
The BCP document cannot solve the (historic) mess, but it could help by
providing a translation table "Unix/RFC DHCP term" -> "Microsoft DHCP
term". It could help those readers coming from an Microsoft DHCP
oriented world view to understand the document (and DHCP related RFCs in
general).
--
Carsten Strotmann
Email: cas@strotmann.de
Blog: strotmann.de
- [dhcwg] "draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-01" - Unix and … Carsten Strotmann