Re: [dhcwg] rfc3679bis, or: about allocation of DHCPv4 options (was [IANA #1172829] Request for Early Allocation of DHCPv4 option (draft-ietf-dhc-v6only)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 23 June 2020 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCCED3A0A62 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 D4D55C9i5Ujz for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 008AC3A0A47 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34473389AC; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:03:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 4jZZZU7PL1f3; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:03:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 887A8389AB; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:03:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD6C400; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:05:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com>, "dhcwg\@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR11MB2547338FDDF60AAB3A52E4A8CF940@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20200623153506.CDFE5389AE@tuna.sandelman.ca> <2346.1592933895@localhost> <BN7PR11MB2547338FDDF60AAB3A52E4A8CF940@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:05:58 -0400
Message-ID: <21987.1592946358@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/5Bi1ho263uh38tTq8uh9Ju57Vq8>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] rfc3679bis, or: about allocation of DHCPv4 options (was [IANA #1172829] Request for Early Allocation of DHCPv4 option (draft-ietf-dhc-v6only)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 21:06:02 -0000

Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
    > I'm really not sure why this is generating so much discussion?

I think because many are surprised with the IANA interaction.

    > I do believe some had a bad experience with option 160, however, it was
    > related to Polycom usage. See

Yes, the question is whether there might be other submarine uses out there :-)

    > And, when we did the work to determine what was in use (~2004 if I
    > recall), no one ever reported that 160 had been used for anything so

Yes, I wasn't criticizing the work: it seems pretty clear to me.
I am just wondering if the results have just not sunk in enough.

    > So, can we be 100% certain there will not be an issues ... no. But that
    > applies to any value IANA may pick. And, we've probably now done more
    > to notify people of the use of 108 and so anyone that knows of a
    > concern would hopefully have stepped forward? Or perhaps may in the
    > next few days?

I doubt it: I think that if there was any use of 108 it's in places that
can't spell IETF.

    > Note also that there have been other options allocated which have not
    > run into problems as far as I am aware.

Understood.

    > I don't think I would change the IANA recommendation, but I also see no
    > reason to disallow folks from recommending values if they have some
    > reason to do so.

As I read the RFC3679 recommendations, it seems that IANA was not actually
following them.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-