Re: [dhcwg] Re: draft-kinnear-dhc-relay-agent-flags-00.txt

[Kim Kinnear <[e-mail]>]

At 05:58 PM 6/8/2006, David W. Hankins wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 03:53:01PM -0400, Kim Kinnear wrote:
>> We have put together a draft which specifies a flags sub-option
>> for the relay agent info option, and includes a flag for unicast
>> or broadcast reception by the Relay Agent:
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kinnear-dhc-relay-agent-flags-00.txt
>
>This is perfect.
>
>In the event an option content longer than 1 byte is received by the
>server, do we need stronger language there to make sure servers evaluate
>the first octet?  It's pretty plain to me since it describes itself as
>an extensible flags field, but I'm also going into this knowing that's
>the goal.

        Good thought.  I assume that you mean that if it is more
        than one byte, that only the first byte has any
        significance.

        We'll add this.




>I also think the flags field gives us a general hammer to use when (if?)
>someone undertakes the work for Ted-Complete (sorry Ted) failover support,
>wherein the servers no longer receive copies and the relay agent provides
>the load balancing...the agent advertising the capability can be carried
>this way for example without additional option overhead.
>
>I think I see (hazily) how failover works in this interim world order
>with just this flag.  I will endeavour to see this more crisply before
>the submission deadline.
>
>
>> In any case, whatever we decide to do here (and it doesn't make
>> *that* much difference), we thought that reviewing the ideas and
>> words might be easier using a separate draft.  Once we get
>> general agreement that we have the sub-option we want, we can
>> integrate it into the server-id-override draft or continue to
>> push it as a separate draft.
>
>I said it in person in Dallas, I'll encode it here for posterity as
>well: I only ask that the WG accept Kim's draft as a WG item. 

        I kind of thought we did in Dallas, but we could do that
        over the list to be sure.

        Ralph, Stig -- can we accept this draft as a working
        group work item over the list?  How do we do that?

        Thanks all -- Kim

> That
>solves my objection.  In my opinion, with that done, the other draft
>may proceed in parallel on the basis that despite even my own concerns
>for "protocol purity".  It solves the more serious problem where
>the servers and clients can't directly unicast if only people are
>a little careful about how they deploy the technology.
>
>> If we can get feedback soon on this draft, then we can fix it in
>> time for the submission deadline for the next IETF and integrate
>> it if that is the sense of the list.
>
>Given.
>
>> Enjoy -- Kim
>
>Thank you for your effort on this, Kim, I appreciate it.
>
>-- 
>David W. Hankins                "If you don't do it right the first time,
>Software Engineer                       you'll just have to do it again."
>Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.               -- Jack T. Hankins
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg