[dhcwg] Naming conventions for DHCPv[46] options
Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Fri, 11 July 2008 11:25 UTC
Return-Path: <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dhcwg-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C9E3A6A36; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5E83A68A3 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5M8kPFc211f5 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60FBB3A6A36 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,344,1212364800"; d="scan'208";a="13964159"
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Jul 2008 11:25:52 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m6BBPq59025037 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:25:52 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6BBPqGL023069 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:25:52 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:25:52 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.104] ([10.86.248.108]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:25:52 -0400
Message-Id: <FC4D4F75-4F9A-4C70-B686-31A8B4179B73@cisco.com>
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
To: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:25:51 -0400
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2008 11:25:52.0074 (UTC) FILETIME=[E052EAA0:01C8E348]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=969; t=1215775552; x=1216639552; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rdroms@cisco.com; z=From:=20Ralph=20Droms=20<rdroms@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Naming=20conventions=20for=20DHCPv[46]=20option s |Sender:=20 |To:=20DHC=20WG=20<dhcwg@ietf.org>; bh=Eys4rL1XQTB5vo9vP1r5VvXLVUWHGf9xYurY9j5B3Sc=; b=UP6VStcv1dvtQG3Ibp4OKZI4Rmqs17T9lOHuKED5KGj48mn8bPIqRUrd7D OeLL+/xH/sw2xCKPVzYIiZpFjr+QiT6u6cJryskExmvcG04kZ9L0APrJrK7O m6DVLuCp/e;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=rdroms@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
Subject: [dhcwg] Naming conventions for DHCPv[46] options
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
During my review of draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option, it occurred to me that we should establish some BCP for naming options that have essentially identical DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 counterparts. For example, RFC 5192 (DHCP options for PANA auth agents) uses the same name, OPTION_PANA_AGENT, for both the DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 options. draft-ietf- ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery-03.txt (DHCP options for LOST discovery), uses OPTION_V4_LOST and OPTION_V6_LOST. draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac- option uses OPTION_CAPWAP_AC_V4 and OPTION_CAPWAP_AC_V6. I don't have a strong preference. Using the same name for both options seems sensible for the IANA listing of option codes, as the DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 options are listed separately. Using different names seems sensisble for developers, as different names for the two option codes would be needed if the same application supplies both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 services. Any opinions from the WG? - Ralph _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] Naming conventions for DHCPv[46] options Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Naming conventions for DHCPv[46] opti… Bud Millwood