RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized?
"Steve Gonczi" <steve@relicore.com> Thu, 27 February 2003 21:17 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24165 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:17:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1RLROg22380 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:27:24 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RLRNp22377 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:27:23 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24161 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:16:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RLPNp22306; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:25:23 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RLNgp22221 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:23:42 -0500
Received: from c015.snv.cp.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA24050 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:13:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: (cpmta 8082 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2003 13:16:56 -0800
Received: from 4.36.57.222 (HELO STEVEPC) by smtp.relicore.com (209.228.35.127) with SMTP; 27 Feb 2003 13:16:56 -0800
X-Sent: 27 Feb 2003 21:16:56 GMT
From: Steve Gonczi <steve@relicore.com>
To: Mark Stapp <mjs@cisco.com>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized?
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:16:03 -0500
Message-ID: <BFELJLKGHEJOPOPGJBKKEEHACEAA.steve@relicore.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030226171308.01dd94b8@goblet.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Greetings, You guys are clearly on to something here. I have just re-read the 04 draft. It proposes a solution to a rather specific problem. It would indeed make sense to generalize it into a more broadly applicable query protocol. Let's try bit more radical tack: It would be useful to add a list-query capability, so that the protocol could return lists of addresses, based on a flexible set of search criteria. E.g.: all assigned IP-s on subnet x. Also, the query could enumerate the pieces of information e desired.(e.g. expiration time, client id... whatever) The currently specified 04 draft would be a functional subset of the general purpose protocol. BTW.. I am surprised to see that the messaging formats is very much inspired by the DHCP/BOOTP message structure. Since this would be a brand new protocol, I fail to see the need to carry this baggage. Err.. why do we need to have the bootp header in the messages? I respectfully propose to lay out the protocol messages in a compact manner, fitted to the need of the query protocol itself. For all intensive purposes, the protocol could even be TCP based, similar to the failover protocol. If there is sufficient interest, I will be glad to provide some examples of "general purpose" query and response formats. /sG -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Mark Stapp Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 5:38 PM To: Thomas Narten Cc: Bernie Volz (EUD); 'Kevin A. Noll'; Kim Kinnear; dhcwg@ietf.org; Ralph Droms Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? > I agree with Bernie and Kevin. I particularly liked the 'data-centric' > words in Kevin's post. DHCP servers tend to know information about DHCP > clients and IP addresses, they're the sole authority for that information, > and that information may be useful to other applications or entities on the > network.... .....rest of the discussion clipped...... _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Mark Stapp
- RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Mark Stapp
- RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Steve Gonczi
- RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Woundy, Richard
- RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Erik Nordmark
- RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Woundy, Richard