Re: [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-01.txt

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 05:30:41PM -0700, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I think the working group has pretty much agreed to go forward with 
> Vendor Identified Vendor Specific suboptions, so on a practical level 
> it seems like a mistake not to use it.   Either we want to do things 
> that way, or we don't, and it seems like the consensus is that we do.   

We do, I agree completely with that.

> Hacking the ISC server to support these options isn't particularly 
> hard; if somebody really wants it before you have time to do it, they 
> can always implement it themselves and send you patches!

Do not mistake my statement as a condemnation against adopting
VIVSO, I merely am not able to provide accurate information about
what may appear in an upcoming ISC DHCP feature release at this
particular moment in time, or even when that will be.

Due to the size and content of the feature request list, we are
going to have to spread them out over several releases.  It is not
clear to me that VIVSO will make the next feature release.

Mr. Droms was indicating a need for urgency.  I hope to rectify my
ignorance about our release schedule soon, and will correct myself
if that information is still useful to the workgroup.

But at this particular moment in time, I am unable to promote VIVSO
as the mechanism for this draft.

-- 
David W. Hankins		"If you don't do it right the first time,
Operations Engineer			you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins