RE: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6

Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com> Wed, 23 January 2002 18:58 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20598 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:58:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA11729 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:58:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA10728; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:40:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA10706 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:40:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.users.bit-net.com (www.bit-net.com [208.146.132.4]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA19899 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:40:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by mail.users.bit-net.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/30Jul96-0143PM) id AA05170; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:39:56 -0500
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:39:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
Cc: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6
In-Reply-To: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4CDEE@EAMBUNT705>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1020123133704.8303A-100000@www.bit-net.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

Bernie,

And I do not agree.  DHCPv6 had this split and we combined them do you
recall that?

But more importantly we made commitments to other working groups to
support these options at the same time as dhcpv6.  Some of these options
other working group has been waiting on for over a year.  


/jim


On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Bernie Volz (EUD) wrote:

> Jim:
> 
> I am *NOT* saying these options aren't important. It is just to clearly specify which options should appear in which document. I think we should work very hard to get the additional drafts done for these options. It is just that we should say that if an option is strictly related to the operation of the DHCP protocol, it should be in the base specification. It is related only to data that configures a client, it can be documented in a separate specification.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Bound [mailto:seamus@bit-net.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 11:41 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (EUD)
> Cc: Ralph Droms; dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6
> 
> 
> Bernie,
> 
> Again DNS options are needed NOW for IPv6 deployment.  Specifically for
> IPv6 DNS Stateless discovery.
> 
> That which is needed for IPv6 deployment is as important to any option we
> have in the spec.
> 
> Implementors like VJ and others need these now the reason is we are so
> late with DHC6 for the market we do not have the luxury to not include
> basic options which which are required by the IPv6 market early adopters.
> 
> So I would argue this should affect our thinking on this discussion.
> Right now boot server for diskess nodes is less important to the market
> (our customer here) than configured tunnel option.  
> 
> /jim
> 
> 
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Bernie Volz (EUD) wrote:
> 
> > Ralph:
> > 
> > I agree with this. It also means we can divide the work by having many people write drafts. Reviewing is also easier as people can focus on those documents that they feel are critical to them.
> > 
> > I also think your initial list of options looks good and is the basic set for protocol operation. It may not provide the basic set for client configuration and we might even argue that two, the Domain Search Option and Domain Name Server Option, could even be moved to that other document since they aren't related to the operational issues of the DHCP protocol. 
> > 
> > For IESG review, I think it will be important to point out that this is the basic set required for proper DHCP protocol operation and not the basic set to provide client configuration.
> > 
> > - Bernie
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:56 PM
> > To: dhcwg@ietf.org
> > Subject: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6
> > 
> > 
> > We've recently experienced a proliferation of proposed and defined options 
> > for DHCPv6.  Initially, the WG agreed to publish all options that were 
> > defined at the time the base spec was completed in the same doc.  I'm 
> > having second thoughts about that decision.  Here's what I'm thinking:
> > 
> > * The new options are adding more weight to
> >    an already hefty document
> > * Keeping all the options in one doc make
> >    updating any one option more complicated
> > * Reviewing all of these options will slow
> >    down the acceptance process
> > 
> > I propose that we put a moratorium on adding any new options to 
> > draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt, and move any non-essential options out of 
> > draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt into individual drafts.  The definition of 
> > "essential" is open to discussion; here's a first pass at a list of the 
> > options to retain in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt:
> > 
> > * DHCP unique identifier option
> > * Identity association option
> > * IA Address option
> > * Requested Temporary Addresses (RTA) Option
> > * Option request option
> > * Preference option
> > * Elapsed Time
> > * Client message option
> > * Server message option
> > * Authentication option
> > * Server unicast option
> > * Domain Search Option
> > * Domain Name Server Option
> > * Status Code Option
> > 
> > - Ralph
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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