Re: [dhcwg] Comments on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-netboot-05

[Stephen Jacob <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 04:03:55PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Well, by separating the parameters from the boot file option, it's enough
> to specify the parameters once for all boot images (if all take the same
> parameters). That's much easier to maintain than if copies of the
> parameters would be put into the same options as the boot file name (you
> would then have to change all options in your DHCP server configuration
> file if you want to change only the parameters).>

How common do you think it will be to /both/:

	(1) have multiple boot images
    AND
	(2) have them all (or several) share the same boot parameters?

It feels to me like your draft introduces significant complexity
in order to optimize (not even to support -- it would already
be possible; just with duplication of information) for this one
case. In every other case, it is significant added complexity for
no benefit.

It may not seem particularly complex, but as someone involved in
writing the server side I am glad that it seems like I would not
have to be on the receiving end of these options (and could just
send to clients what was administratively configured, thus avoiding
having to do a lot of special-case work). Introducing a new form of
linkage between options seems like it could be a bit of a pain for
implementors, especially of clients.

> All in all, I think we're doing the right approach with the latest version
> of our draft already. It's also available for more than half a year now,
> and so far nobody complained about this yet.

Strictly speaking, Damien just did, so somebody has ... however I
suspect that you didn't mean to discount what he said. :) I imagine
this is a subtle translation issue.

Regards,
Stephen
-- 
 Stephen Jacob | [e-mail] | [phone]
 Nominum, Inc. |  http://www.nominum.com/  | [phone]