Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-timezone-option-02.txt
John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com> Thu, 10 August 2006 18:32 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GBFKg-0005BS-R2; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:32:38 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GBFKe-0005BN-Vx for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:32:36 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GBFKd-0003Ps-Ng for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:32:36 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Aug 2006 11:32:35 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.08,111,1154934000"; d="scan'208"; a="35545391:sNHT24654164"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k7AIWZcw029479; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:32:35 -0400
Received: from [68.48.124.145] (che-vpn-cluster-2-46.cisco.com [10.86.242.46]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k7AIWYe2026711; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:32:34 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <44DB789D.8090802@cisco.com>
References: <23FE5FF5-6782-4764-A4C5-4D7253DC5C6D@cisco.com> <44DB3A9F.9090606@cisco.com> <44DB5D4A.301@cisco.com> <44DB789D.8090802@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <b626e16ba51cc0606b5dcdb48225565d@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-timezone-option-02.txt
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:32:30 -0400
To: Mark Stapp <mjs@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.624)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1397; t=1155234755; x=1156098755; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jschnizl@cisco.com; z=From:John=20Schnizlein=20<jschnizl@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20[dhcwg]=20dhc=20WG=20last=20call=20on=20draft-ietf-dhc-timezone- option-02.txt |To:Mark=20Stapp=20<mjs@cisco.com>; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3D443Yg4SqGBVM3GdTWFjlBwB8H3Y=3D; b=Y5LRr7+gzRKfWEHaIYaM4CJiCmp1yx4O4/XPbhum6kLLXFfE0SXLLtbk9ya2b+Hx1btFEzSz KmZDetqG0SEvvmpTVB/+/Ua3Ej1TkRpm1vyW7T7bLV/93glg6MSQaldL;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com; header.From=jschnizl@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Changing the size of the length field is not compatible with the definition in RFC 3121. Notice in this quoted excerpt that the length field is explicitly specified as "length octet". John 2. BOOTP Extension/DHCP Option Field Format DHCP options have the same format as the BOOTP 'vendor extensions' defined in RFC 1497 [2]. Options may be fixed length or variable length. All options begin with a tag octet, which uniquely identifies the option. Fixed-length options without data consist of only a tag octet. Only options 0 and 255 are fixed length. All other options are variable-length with a length octet following the tag octet. On Aug 10, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Mark Stapp wrote: > >>> and further on in section 2: >>> >>> "Len is the two-octet value of the length ..." >>> >>> is that correct? these are 16-bit length v4 options? the accompanying >>> picture looks like regular 8-bit lengths are intended. >> The intent is 16 bits. How can I improve the diagram? > > ummm - really? is there any other dhcpv4 option that specifies this? I > think that these v4 options should not try to specify unique 'type' or > 'len' encodings. that'd be undesirable... > > Thanks, > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-timezo… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-ti… David W. Hankins
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-ti… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-ti… Shane Kerr
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-ti… Mark Stapp
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-ti… H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-ti… Eliot Lear
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-ti… Mark Stapp
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-ti… John Schnizlein
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-ti… John Schnizlein
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-ti… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-ti… Eliot Lear
- RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-ti… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-ti… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-ti… Eliot Lear
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-ti… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-ti… Eliot Lear