RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-03.txt

"Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se> Tue, 15 October 2002 13:58 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02107 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:58:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9FDxgu16510 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:59:42 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9FDxgv16507 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:59:42 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02083 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:57:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9FDuov16411; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:56:50 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9FDrHv16338 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:53:17 -0400
Received: from imr1.ericy.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01686 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:51:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mr7.exu.ericsson.se (mr7u3.ericy.com [208.237.135.122]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9FDrAj05511; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:53:10 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by mr7.exu.ericsson.se (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9FDrAS26285; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:53:10 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id <41PDB7MV>; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:53:10 -0500
Message-ID: <F9211EC7A7FED4119FD9005004A6C8700AAD9134@eamrcnt723.exu.ericsson.se>
From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
To: "'Jean-Francois Mule'" <jf.mule@cablelabs.com>, Matt Osman <M.Osman@cablelabs.com>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, "'Thomas Narten'" <narten@us.ibm.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-03.txt
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:53:10 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C27451.F282C6A8"
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
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>

FYI - Perhaps you want to reserve a few suboption codes for experimental and/or "private" sub-options? This would be similar to how the DHCPv4 option space is assigned (1-127 are for IETF assigned options, 128-254 are for "private" options).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Francois Mule [mailto:jf.mule@cablelabs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 9:25 AM
To: 'Thomas Narten'
Cc: Matt Osman; dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-03.txt


Paul will reply the comments pertaining to draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-03. I'm replying on the more general questions Thomas asked on behalf of CableLabs.

Thomans Narten wrote:
> >    IANA is requested to register codes for future CableLabs Client 
> >    Configuration Sub-options with an "Expert Review" 
> approval policy as 
> >    described in RFC 2434 [2]. Future proposed sub-options will be 
> >    assigned a numeric code chosen by CableLabs, which will be 
> >    documented in the Internet Drafts that describe the 
> sub-options. The 
> >    code assignment will be reviewed by a designated expert from the 
> >    IETF prior to publication in an RFC. 
> 
> 1) I think it should be IETF consensus, not expert review. these
>    options need to be reviewed by the IETF before they get implemented
>    and cast in stone. IETF Consensus is the safest way to ensure that
>    this happens.
> 2) IANA chooses the values (as it typically does), not
>    cablelabs. (Having cablelabs chose smells a bit like they want the
>    values early for their implementations and/or specs)
Fully agree with the "IETF Consensus" approach. 
My concern is we should be able to choose a temporary or experimental sub-option code to get implementations going & interoperability testing started.  Nothing "cast in stone" and upon IETF review and comments, we will issue Engineering Change Requests to modify our specs as appropriate.
What would be your best recommendation so that we can achieve our short-term goals to get implementations going for interop purposes while allowing IETF Consensus?

Jean-Francois.
CableLabs, PacketCable
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg