Re: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on draft-ietf-dhc-pxelinux-01

On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 05:19:28PM -0400, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> I fully support this document moving forward.

Thank you, Bernie.

> Therefore, I think it makes more sense to just allocate 208 to PXELINUX,
> but call it a deprecated option. Then if 10 years from now we're out of
> option codes, we could reclaim it. But, if we never need it, no harm
> done. I also think this is easier than tagging it as "last resort".

I think you're right, and rather wonder why I didn't think of that
first.

The objective is just to 'mark the landmine'.  I've made the changes
in my sources

> 1. Rename section 6 to "Reboot Time Option".

Fixed in my sources.

> 2. Perhaps the title should just be "PXELINUX Options"? As 'Site Local'
> are now redefined (per RFC 3942) and as this just documents the PXELINUX
> usage.

I sort of agree.  Both the old and new titles aren't very informative
if you don't know what 'option' means contextually.

  <title abbrev="PXELINUX Options">Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
	Options Used by PXELINUX</title>

?

More nits;

Per Stig (some time ago), I simplified the abstract (so as to remove
references).  This does mean that I had to place references in the
introduction.

Some capitalizations in the introduction's summary list of options
being documented.

> I don't think there would be need to respind this document for any of
> these (if adopted) - they can be handled as notes to the RFC-Editor?

I don't know.  If we get too many more nits, I wouldn't object to
respinning it just to simplify the process for the editor.

-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins