[dhcwg] RE: draft-daniel-dhc-dhcpv4-tep-conf-01.txt

["Bernie Volz" <[e-mail]>]

Daniel:

While preparing for the IETF meeting, I have these comments on the
draft-daniel-dhc-dhcpv4-tep-conf-01.txt draft.

It's probably best to remove the "reserved" byte from the two options in
this draft unless you expect to use this field sometime in the future.

Trying to align the remaining fields is really useless since there is no
guarentee that the option byte will be aligned on any particular boundry
(other than on a byte boundry). The client and server will just have to
pack/unpack the data. And, saving the one byte from the option could be
useful (as DHCPv4 is often restricted to fairly small packet sizes).

And, it might be best to move the prefix-length field to before the IPv6
address (keeping them together). 


The DHCP messages used in this draft are the DHCPv6 ones - not the DHCPv4
ones. You really want to use DHCPDISCOVER, DHCPOFFER, DHCPACK and the like
for the message names!


I also don't understand the need for the OPTION_CTEP_REQ option. Either you
need to explain this better in the draft (what, for example would the client
fill in in this option) or remove it - why can't the client just simply
request this option in a Parameter Request List option?

- Bernie


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg