Re: [dhcwg] extending the DHCPv4 option space, VSO usage -- was: Re: issues with draft-grochla-80211-dhcp-option-00

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

I'm not going to respond point-by-point to your helpful and insightful comments because it would get rather long, but suffice it to say that you've raised some very useful issues that I will take into account when I write up the option extension document.

Your point about the extended parameter request list, however, pretty much puts to rest the idea that this should be a vendor option.   If it's a vendor option, the client can't request it.   So it really can't be a vendor option.

You've proposed a solution to that problem--standardize the format of vendor options, and add a vendor option request option.   I think it's unnecessary, but don't really oppose it.   But that solution would require a bunch of standards work, and I suspect it would be controversial.   It's not fair to delay this draft on the basis of the potential that that solution might someday be standardized.   And I still think that this sort of option isn't what vendor options are for--my understanding of vendor options is that they're for vendors--e.g., Cisco, not IEEE.