Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-agent-flags-02.txt

> Since the wg last-call is over, I'm not sure quite what the right thing 
> to do is. Do you feel that the iesg will not be able to evaluate this 
> draft without another revision, containing one extra sentence?

I think they (and the IETF as a whole, as I don't think the IETF LC
has happened) will probably be able to evaluate it better with the
extra sentence (btw, what will it be?). But is it critical? No. Also,
since it only takes 2 minutes to submit a revised ID (once you have
the text), I think its often less work to just do so than have a
discussion about whether to. :-)

> >> 4.  DHCP Relay Agent Behavior
> >>
> >>    A DHCP relay agent MUST include this suboption in every Relay Agent
> >>    Information Option [RFC3046] it adds to a forwarded DHCP request.  In
> > 
> > It seems to me like this MUST is too strong and unenforceable. Relay
> > Agent options are already defined, and this is a new one, so this
> > requirement is unenforceable. Moreover, why is this so important?  In
> > the absence of a compelling justification, SHOULD seems more
> > appropriate.
> > 
> > 

> the intention here wasn't to introduce some sort of ... unfunded 
> mandate. it was just to make it clear what support for the standard 
> would mean. if an implementation doesn't support the (eventual) 
> standard, then of course it's not going to be including this suboption. 
> an implementation that claims compliance needs to obey section 4. an 
> implementation that isn't compliant ... probably won't. Is there 
> something here that's different from any of the other suboptions (or 
> options) that have been developed individually?

Well, for one thing, the above text makes its sound like a protocol
violation to implement the spec, but choose not to send the option
(e.g., even if configured to do so for some reason). That seems a bit
strong to me.

Thomas

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