Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
 by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
 id 1DYpOE-0006xb-4U; Thu, 19 May 2005 14:04:58 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
 by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DYpOC-0006xR-Pb
 for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 19 May 2005 14:04:56 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
 by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00750
 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 May 2005 14:04:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: peter_blatherwick@mitel.com
Received: from smtp.mitel.com ([216.191.234.102])
 by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DYpfO-0001OC-GM
 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 May 2005 14:22:43 -0400
Received: from localhost (smtp.mitel.com [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp.mitel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
 id 4EEDC200D7; Thu, 19 May 2005 14:04:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtp.mitel.com ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp.mitel.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
 port 10124) with LMTP
 id 25709-01; Thu, 19 May 2005 14:04:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from kanmta01.mitel.com (kanmta01 [134.199.37.58])
 by smtp.mitel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
 id D242E200D4; Thu, 19 May 2005 14:04:45 -0400 (EDT)
To: dhcwg@ietf.org, iana@iana.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.12   February 13, 2003
Message-ID: <OF1F877D70.47C7929D-ON85257006.00628F6C-85257006.00634F4B@mitel.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 14:07:09 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on kanmta01/Mitel(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 
 2003) at 05/19/2005 02:04:44 PM,
 Serialize complete at 05/19/2005 02:04:44 PM
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new (virusonly) at mitel.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cd26b070c2577ac175cd3a6d878c6248
Cc: 
Subject: [dhcwg] (no subject)
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0557275724=="
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--===============0557275724==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="=_alternative 00634F4885257006_="

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 00634F4885257006_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hello DHC WG and IANA, 

Regarding RFC 3942, this is to document our (Mitel Networks) use of DHCP 
options 128-135 in the current vendor-specific range, and to request these 
be placed on the "Tentatively Assigned"  list.

Our usage is as follows.  All are related to configuration of IP Phones 
(and similar devices) in a VoIP network. 

Option    Usage
======    =====
128       TFPT Server IP address (for IP Phone - specific sw load)
129       Call Server IP address
130       Discrimination string (to identify vendor)
131       Remote statistics server IP address
132       802.1P VLAN ID
133       802.1Q L2 Priority
134       Diffserv Code Point
135       HTTP Proxy for phone-specific applications


Please confirm that these will go on the Tentatively Assigned list (or 
perhaps some already are). 

Also, it is not completely clear whether an I-D documenting this same 
information is or is not required.  We are currently looking at getting 
away from this scheme, in favor of better defined / standardized 
vendor-specific methods.  Given this, and the high likelihood of clashes 
over the same options wanted for use by others, we do not currently intend 
to pursue standardization of these options.  Is an I-D required to 
complete the process of putting the options on the Tentatively Assigned 
list? 

While we're on it, is there already, or will there be, a definitive list 
of all the options in Tentatively Assigned state? 

Regards,
Peter Blatherwick
Sr. Solutions Architect,
Mitel Networks

--=_alternative 00634F4885257006_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hello DHC WG and IANA, </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regarding RFC 3942, this is to document our (Mitel Networks) use of DHCP options 128-135 in the current vendor-specific range, and to request these be placed on the &quot;Tentatively Assigned&quot; &nbsp;list.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Our usage is as follows. &nbsp;All are related to configuration of IP Phones (and similar devices) in a VoIP network. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Option &nbsp; &nbsp;Usage</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">====== &nbsp; &nbsp;=====</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">128 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; TFPT Server IP address (for IP Phone - specific sw load)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">129 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Call Server IP address</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">130 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Discrimination string (to identify vendor)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">131 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Remote statistics server IP address</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">132 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 802.1P VLAN ID</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">133 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 802.1Q L2 Priority</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">134 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Diffserv Code Point</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">135 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; HTTP Proxy for phone-specific applications</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Please confirm that these will go on the Tentatively Assigned list (or perhaps some already are). </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Also, it is not completely clear whether an I-D documenting this same information is or is not required. &nbsp;We are currently looking at getting away from this scheme, in favor of better defined / standardized vendor-specific methods. &nbsp;Given this, and the high likelihood of clashes over the same options wanted for use by others, we do not currently intend to pursue standardization of these options. &nbsp;Is an I-D required to complete the process of putting the options on the Tentatively Assigned list? &nbsp;</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">While we're on it, is there already, or will there be, a definitive list of all the options in Tentatively Assigned state? &nbsp; </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Peter Blatherwick</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Sr. Solutions Architect,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Mitel Networks</font>
<br>
--=_alternative 00634F4885257006_=--


--===============0557275724==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

--===============0557275724==--



