RE: [dhcwg] Fwd: RFC-to-be: <draft-ietf-dhc-csr-07.txt>

Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com> Wed, 09 October 2002 21:09 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 RAA04869 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:09:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g99LAog19064 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:10:50 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g99LAov19061 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:10:50 -0400
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 RAA04859 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:08:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g99L89v18995; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:08:09 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g99L7kv18980 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:07:46 -0400
Received: from rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04729 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:05:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from goblet.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g99L7gAp029180; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:07:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from KKINNEAR-W2K.cisco.com (ch2-dhcp150-119.cisco.com [161.44.150.119]) by goblet.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ABW99061; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:07:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20021009170712.024efa38@goblet.cisco.com>
X-Sender: kkinnear@goblet.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:07:34 -0400
To: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>, "'Ralph Droms'" <rdroms@cisco.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Fwd: RFC-to-be: <draft-ietf-dhc-csr-07.txt>
In-Reply-To: <F9211EC7A7FED4119FD9005004A6C8700AAD90F5@eamrcnt723.exu.er icsson.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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>

At 04:56 PM 10/9/2002, Bernie Volz (EUD) wrote:

>What about adding: 
>
>   115     Failover                 N    DHCP Failover Protocol 
>
>That option was probably used in some of the early failover protocol 
>designs? It is not used in DRAFT-IETF-DHC-FAILOVER-10.TXT. 

        I agree with Bernie -- we should reclaim this.

        Cheers -- Kim


>- Bernie 
>
>-----Original Message----- 
>From: Ralph Droms [<mailto:rdroms@cisco.com>mailto:rdroms@cisco.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 4:52 PM 
>To: dhcwg@ietf.org 
>Subject: [dhcwg] Fwd: RFC-to-be: <draft-ietf-dhc-csr-07.txt> 
>
>Well, considering we're now at option code 121, perhaps I should start the 
>process of resolving the status of some of the unused option codes.  Here 
>are some option codes that should be easy to decide on: 
>
>Option  Name 
>code 
>------  -------- 
>83, 84   Relay agent options 
>89       FQDNs in DHCP options 
>91       VINES TCP/IP server 
>96       IPv6 Transition 
>100      Printer name 
>101-107 Multicast assignment through DHCP 
>108      Swap path 
>110      IPX compatibility 
>
>These option codes were assigned based on requests to IANA, but none of the 
>associated options were ever published as RFCs.  I've tried to contact the 
>persons to whom these option codes were assigned, and have either received 
>an ack that the option codes can be returned or no response to my 
>e-mail.  As an informal next step, please respond to the mailing list if 
>you know of any implementation or use of any of these option codes. 
>
>- Ralph 
>
>>From: "IANA" <iana@icann.org> 
>>To: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>om>, <rfc@stuartcheshire.org>rg>, 
>>         <bernie.volz@ericsson.com> 
>>Cc: <rdroms@cisco.com> 
>>Subject: RFC-to-be: <draft-ietf-dhc-csr-07.txt> 
>>Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:16:48 -0700 
>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) 
>>Importance: Normal 
>> 
>>Authors: 
>> 
>>We are working on the IANA Actions for RFC-to-be: 
>><draft-ietf-dhc-csr-07.txt>. 
>> 
>>We have assigned value 121 to the Classless Static 
>>Route Option.  Please see the following for the 
>>registration and make sure everything looks OK: 
>> 
>><<http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters>http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters> 
>> 
>>Please reply back with a final OK so that we may 
>>send a message to the RFC Editor indicating that the 
>>IANA Actions are completed. 
>> 
>>Thank you, 
>> 
>>Michelle S. Cotton 
>>IANA Administrator 
>
>_______________________________________________ 
>dhcwg mailing list 
>dhcwg@ietf.org 
><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg 

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