Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Configuration

> 1.  A primary use case is for testing/lab/trial deployments.  The only way 
> to configure an MTA (a headless, embedded device) for a non standard port 
> number would be via the CCC sub-option 4/5 mechanism.

That seems like an argument for perhaps an experimental RFC, but
as I understand it the intent is to make this specification a proposed
standard.

> 2. Permitting protocol servers to run on a non standard port is not without 
> precedence.  Its been pointed out that Paul Vixie's "named" server allows 
> it to be configured on a specific port. Does this mean that Paul is 
> violating Internet Standards ?  Come to think of it, I don't think I've 
> ever seen a protocol server that did not permit configuration of its 
> protocol port.

I don't think anybody has claimed that servers must always use the
standard port number.

Instead the issue seems to be that the sole reason that these suboptions
are needed i.e. why the standard DHCP options for DNS servers are not 
sufficient. is the claimed need to support non-standard port numbers. 

Why invent a new standard mechanism for this, especially since the utility 
is limited to testing/lab/trials?

  Erik

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