IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Wed, 23 January 2002 12:44 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06439 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 07:44:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA24006 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 07:44:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA23871; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 07:38:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA23850 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 07:38:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06340 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 07:38:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from green.bisbee.fugue.com (dhcp48.autumn.secret-wg.org [193.0.7.48]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g0NCYsa23921; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:34:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dechen (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.bisbee.fugue.com (8.10.2/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g0NCbs000872; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:37:54 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:37:54 +0100
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v480)
Cc: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>, dhcwg@ietf.org
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020123063040.00b9bcd8@funnel.cisco.com>
Message-Id: <05B2A5F1-0FFE-11D6-AF3C-00039317663C@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I am unaware of a single example where site-specific options have ever been 
used.   This is why I think it's better not to put language about reserved 
portions of the option space in the base draft - I think we need to figure 
out what we want to do carefully.   Is it really site-specific that we want?
    What about vendor-specific?   What about user-defined?   If you want to 
reserve any space in the draft, I would just call the reserved space 
"experimental" rather than being specific about who can use it.   Reserving 
4096 codes is probably plenty, though, as you say - I don't think we need 
32k.


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

v2.20.0 | Report a Bug | By Email