RE: [dhcwg] (no subject)

"Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com> Tue, 23 November 2004 14:59 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17269; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:59:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CWbuU-0003VC-Hk; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:44:50 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CWbqj-0001s8-Su for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:40:58 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14884 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:40:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CWbuO-00019E-In for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:44:46 -0500
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (171.71.177.238) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Nov 2004 07:46:07 +0000
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id iANEeK9j006298; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:40:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from volzw2k ([161.44.65.122]) by flask.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id ANF88685; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:40:18 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "'Theodore Vojnovich'" <tbvojnov@us.ibm.com>, <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] (no subject)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:40:17 -0500
Organization: Cisco
Message-ID: <001001c4d16a$59e73640$7a412ca1@amer.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4939.300
In-Reply-To: <OF6CB57CA3.26395593-ON85256F55.0012E88B-85256F55.0013D14C@us.ibm.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 32b73d73e8047ed17386f9799119ce43
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0447504365=="
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

No, RFC 3942 only impacts the "main" DHCP option numbers, not sub-options
inside of other options. So, if you're currently encoding suboptions in
Option 43, you can continue to do that
 
- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Theodore Vojnovich
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:36 PM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: [dhcwg] (no subject)



Does rfc 3942 affect the usage of vendor specific options (vendor class
identifier option 60 or client identifier option 61).  Specifically, 
in the response to option 60 (option 43)  still have "sub" options in the
200s...or....do we need to get some sort of IANA position on the use 
of vendor options inside 60/43? 

Thanks

Ted Vojnovich

Email:  tbvojnov@us.ibm.com


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