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

Mark Stapp wrote:
> I have a couple of questions about the text.
>
> in section 2:
>
>  "The following three options ..."
>
> there are only two options now.

Right.  To be fixed.

>
> 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?
>
> in section 7.1, should there be a sentence guiding clients? section 7
> only discusses server behavior or configuration right now. should it
> include something to the effect that clients should ask for the new
> options along with the deprecated one? or that they should prefer the
> new options over the deprecated one if they receive both from their
> server?

If you think it needs to be said, okay.  Shane Kerr has proposed
language to clean this up a bit:
> "Current implementations that support the time offset IPv4 option SHOULD
> implement this option also. Other implementations SHOULD implement this
> option, and SHOULD NOT implement the time offset IPv4 option."

Would the following sentences appended to the above address your concerns?

"As a matter of transition, clients that already use the time offset option MAY also request the timezone offset option."

>
> other than those three questions, I support advancement of this draft.
>

Thanks, Mark!

Eliot

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