Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-timezone-option-02.txt

Sorry for the typo.  The definition of options is, of course, in RFC 
2132, not 3121.

On Aug 10, 2006, at 2:32 PM, John Schnizlein wrote:

> Changing the size of the length field is not compatible with the 
> definition in RFC 3121. Notice in this quoted excerpt that the length 
> field is explicitly specified as "length octet".
>
> John
>
> 2. BOOTP Extension/DHCP Option Field Format
>
>    DHCP options have the same format as the BOOTP 'vendor extensions'
>    defined in RFC 1497 [2].  Options may be fixed length or variable
>    length.  All options begin with a tag octet, which uniquely
>    identifies the option.  Fixed-length options without data consist of
>    only a tag octet.  Only options 0 and 255 are fixed length.  All
>    other options are variable-length with a length octet following the
>    tag octet.
>
> On Aug 10, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Mark Stapp wrote:
>>
>>>> and further on in section 2:
>>>>
>>>>   "Len is the two-octet value of the length ..."
>>>>
>>>> is that correct? these are 16-bit length v4 options? the 
>>>> accompanying
>>>> picture looks like regular 8-bit lengths are intended.
>>> The intent is 16 bits.  How can I improve the diagram?
>>
>> ummm - really? is there any other dhcpv4 option that specifies this? 
>> I think that these v4 options should not try to specify unique 'type' 
>> or 'len' encodings. that'd be undesirable...
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>

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