Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-leasequery-by-remote-id

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 2, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Pavan Kurapati wrote:
> Now, we have 2 options. 1) to keep the draft as it is. Servers which
> have anyway implemented RFC 4388  will be adding associated-ip whether
> requested or not.
> 2) Change it only for query by remote ID draft to make sure that AC
> adds PRL with associated-IP option populated. Server will reply with
> associated-ip only if it is requested in the leasequery by remote-id.
> However, server should continue to give it for other query types.

When I talked with SJ about this while I was in Redwood City this week, he seemed to think that even though the base spec requires the server to send the associated IP regardless of whether it was requested, it was a mistake to put this in RFC4388, and it's better not to compound the error in this spec.   I tend to agree with this.

At the same time, I don't think we should make things *worse* by placing a new requirement on the server that it *not* do the behavior specified in RFC4388.   Rather, what I would suggest is that this spec say that the client MUST request the option, and then this spec should not place any requirement on the server that it either send, or not send, the associated-ip address option.   I think in general implementations will send the associated-ip address option regardless, because of the requirement in RFC4388.

My main motivation for saying that we should remove the language in this draft is not that I expect it to change implementations, but that it's a bad precedent to place requirements like this on servers, and I don't want someone reading the draft to get the impression that it's okay to place such requirements on servers, when they write a future draft.