Re: [dhcwg] Why the precedence stuff is in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-netboot-05

[Stephen Jacob <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 02:08:22PM -0700, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Stephen Jacob proposed eliminating the wildcard bootfile-parameters  
> option precedence, with the idea that this would remove some  
> complexity.   In the two-option case it does remove complexity, and so  
> is worth considering.   In the multiple-option or multiple-suboption  
> cases I don't think it removes any real complexity, though.

It is true that I was unclear in stating what I thought should
replace it.

I was arguing for Damien's second suggestion, in which he went
back on his original objection to multiple option occurences
and suggested that each boot file be an occurrence of the option,
but that the option contain both boot file URL and parameters.

I.e. now the draft has, I believe:

	boot file URL:	<precedence><url>
	boot params:	<precedence><options>

	(Each allowing multiple occurrences).

I am suggesting one option:

	boot file/params: [<precedence>]<url><options>

	(Allowing multiple occurrences for multiple URLs).

With this scheme, "precedence" is no longer rather kludgily
performing 2 entirely separate tasks ((1) precedence and (2)
linking of URLs with parameters) and you get to decide whether
it is important to retain it or not.

I really have no particular objection to the <precedence>
field. I just strongly dislike its use as a way to link
2 separate options (url and params).

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