Re: [dhcwg] What sorts of services does DHCP configure?

Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU> Thu, 17 October 2013 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F4C21F8F78 for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 07:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k3lMpfKXtpbP for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 07:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2001:3c8:9009:181::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF50311E81CB for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 07:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (jade.coe.psu.AC.TH [IPv6:2001:3c8:9007:1::21]) by with ESMTP id r9HE1UYf017275; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 21:01:31 +0700 (ICT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.7/8.14.2) with ESMTP id r9HE1MoR002613; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 21:01:23 +0700 (ICT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.5
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
To: Sheng Jiang <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 21:01:22 +0700
Message-ID: <>
Cc: " WG" <>, Ted Lemon <>, "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] What sorts of services does DHCP configure?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:58:26 -0000

    Date:        Thu, 17 Oct 2013 05:42:12 +0000
    From:        Sheng Jiang <>
    Message-ID:  <>

  | Why DHC WG cannot say no to what should not be in DHC? 

Would you ask the same question if it were the TCP working group attempting
to stop some application protocol because the TCP people didn't like it?

The DHCP working group's job is to make DHCP work - improving as much
as possible the efficiency, reliability, and security - as with any other

It isn't to dictate how others use the result.   If some other WG has a
use for some data, and having that deliver delivered by DHCP looks to be
the best way (to them) then provided the idea survives IETF last call,
it really is no-one else's business.

Of course this WG (and anyone else) can suggest alternatives, or describe
problems, and suggest better ways - but no-one gets (unilaterally) to
impose road blocks.    Ted was right in what he said - if the proposal in
question isn't a good idea, by all means say so, but don't start believing
that this group has any right to tell any other what they can or cannot do.