RE: [dhcwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-02.txt

Perhaps something needs to be said in both drafts?

I have no major issue with saying that you need to run servers that conform
to the standard for this work, but I do believe the draft should say
something about the implications of implementing the draft so that vendors
producing clients and servers remember to warn their customers when
deploying updated software. And, there's always the issue of coordinating
client and server updates - if a new client runs on an old server, the
client identifier that needs to be configured for a reservation will differ
significantly from that used by an updated server.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted
Lemon
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 1:29 PM
To: Bernie Volz
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-02.txt

On Mar 9, 2004, at 11:10 AM, Bernie Volz wrote:
> 2. Place appropriate warnings/cautions/directions as to what a server 
> is
> supposed to use as the "client identifier". Though, while this 
> resolves the
> situation for those servers that are modified to support this work, it
> doesn't resolve the issue for those servers that don't.

Just as a reminder, there is no standard saying what servers currently 
are supposed to do with client identifier- there are just a bunch of 
soon-to-expire drafts.   However, your point isn't about standards, but 
about what's deployed.   My point in bringing this up is not to say 
"it's not a problem", but rather to try to suggest that the right 
solution _is_ in fact to say "you have to run servers that conform to 
the standard if you want it to work," not to make the protocol more 
complex to account for non-conforming implementations.  The intention 
when I was asked to write this draft was that it would be a normative 
reference for the DNS update drafts, so no DHCP server that conforms to 
the DNS update drafts will fail to implement this standard.

I'm not sure where the warning you're proposing should go - in this 
draft or in one of the DNS update drafts.

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

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