IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Comments on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-netboot-05

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 06 October 2009 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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 56BCA28C224 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.262
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.262 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.337, 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 c64MZ0wlKj8e for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2AC028C218 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSsubDvMUNnK16Xu8tDS30bsEf70il912@postini.com; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:31:29 PDT
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (webmail.nominum.com [64.89.228.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "webmail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E511B82F4; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vpna-148.vpn.nominum.com (64.89.227.148) by exchange-01.win.nominum.com (64.89.228.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.393.1; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:31:25 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <200910061928.n96JSrCV005622@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:31:23 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <A29118D6-3D66-4998-B7D3-AF1E0C52703C@nominum.com>
References: <994ABFCB-3ABF-484C-9855-1EEACC663CF4@nominum.com> <200910061918.n96JI5Nv005405@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <D4C9A450-68AD-45E2-AED4-189051D48D05@nominum.com> <200910061928.n96JSrCV005622@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076)
Cc: DHC-WG WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Damien Neil <Damien.Neil@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Comments on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-netboot-05
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:29:52 -0000

On Oct 6, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> I'm not saying its necessarily a big problem, but it's surely more
> work (we can argue how much more) to have to go through an entire
> message to find all the related options before being able to actually
> process them, compared with just processing them in order, without
> doing any lookahead.

Nope, I'm still not getting it.   How is it more complicated than  
unpacking the data out of an individual option?   Don't you have to go  
through the entire packet to find that individual option?   You  
already have code that knows how to unpack options, so it seems like  
it's actually more general to encapsulate the data in options than to  
define an option format that has to be parsed specially.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email