Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt

...inline....

>Ave you had a chance to look at
>draft-narten-iana-experimental-allocations-02.txt?  Does this address
>any of your concerns? (Or do I still not really understand the
>concerns behind this?)

Not sure this helps...

> > Cablelabs intends to place any new sub-option additions before IETF for
> > approval (witness the recent submission of sub-option 51), but we STRONGLY
> > would prefer to be allowed to assign the sub-option codes.  It will make
> > life a bit easier for the component manufacturers, compliance
> > testing, etc.
>
>In other words, you want the option number for implementations before
>the ID has been reviewed and finallized by the community.  Isn't this
>what led to the situation with the current document having sat around
>for two years before it became urgent to finalize it (and then oops,
>we've already done it this way, now it's painful to change...). I'll
>note that the -00 version of this ID appeared in March of 2000.

Is the intent here that IETF wants to insure the sub-option number DOES 
change (from experimental to official) when a CCC sub-option draft reaches 
RFC?  Forcing a change in the implementations?  If that is the case, then 
this discussion is over and Cablelabs will need to agree to your proposal.

Cheers,

--

Paul Duffy
Cisco Systems, Inc.
paduffy@cisco.com

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