Re: [dhcwg] AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-unused-optioncodes-03.txt

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Fri, 27 June 2003 22:31 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 SAA23747 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:31:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RMUa729646 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:30:36 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W1jo-0007i5-SH for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:30:36 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23381 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:30:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W1jW-0006oG-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:30:19 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W1jR-0006nZ-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:30:13 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W1jH-0007HV-Vp; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:30:03 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W06q-00010L-LW for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:46:31 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20046 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:46:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W06o-0006HR-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:46:14 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W06d-0006HN-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:46:04 -0400
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h5RKjAgE011933; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com ([161.44.65.118]) by flask.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.3-GR) with ESMTP id AAG94863; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:45:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030627163720.00ba6290@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:42:42 -0400
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-unused-optioncodes-03.txt
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <200306241559.h5OFxVK02817@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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>

At 11:59 AM 6/24/2003 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
>The WG has asked that this document be advanced as an informational
>RFC.
>
>Seems like an IETF Last Call on this document would be appropriate,
>since the point is (in some sense) to verify that it is OK to reuse
>the listed options for something else. Right?

I agree that it would be useful to collect input from the entire
IETF through an IETF last call.


>My comments (all nits, I think).
>
> > Unused DHCP Option Codes
>
>A more descriptive title might be better? E.g.:
>
>   Reclaiming Unused DHCP Option Codes for Reassignment for Future DHCP
>   Options.
>
>(or something similar)

OK.

>
> >    The following option codes are used in the "Preboot Execution
> >    Environment (PXE) Specification, Version 2.1" [4].  However, although
> >    these options are in widespread use by devices that use PXE, none of
> >    these option codes have been specified as a Standards-track RFC.
>
>remove mention of standards track (since this is not required?) I.e.,
>just getting them published as RFCs would be good.

OK.


> > 3.1 Client System
> >
> >    Code:              93
> >
> >    Name:              Client System
> >
> >    Defined in:        (none)
>
>Shouldn't you reference the PXE documents here? (ditto for remaining
>PXE ones).
>
>Also, including the contact information in the option description
>struck me a bit odd. As I was reading this, my first thought was "has
>this person been contacted, and what did they say?" The document could
>include an indication of this.

OK.


> > Normative References
>
>Hmm. Aren't all of the references actually informative? Which ones are
>critical to *this* document?

I think at least this ref is normative:

    [1]  Assigned Numbers Editor, IANA., "BOOTP and DHCP Parameters",
         http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters,
         February 2003.

And this ref gives the definition of the PXE options, and should
be normative:

    [4]  Intel Corporation, , "Preboot Execution Environment (PXE)
         Specification Version 2.1",
         http://www.pix.net/software/pxeboot/archive/pxespec.pdf,
         September 1999.

This ref is arguably normative as it defines a potential use
for two of the options under review:

    [5]  Volz, B., Droms, R. and T. Lemon, "Extending DHCP Options
         Codes", draft-volz-dhc-extended-optioncodes-00.txt (work in
         progress), September 2000.

- Ralph


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