IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] issues with draft-grochla-80211-dhcp-option-00

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 23 September 2010 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28D33A6812 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OifPBmCRlw8C for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og107.obsmtp.com (exprod7og107.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.167]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35EFF3A692E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob107.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTJuI8G/BEecWFv4V4Bxk/MXEzFpB8IFy@postini.com; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:05:58 PDT
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (webmail.nominum.com [64.89.228.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "webmail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80DA51B9304; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vpna-148.vpn.nominum.com (64.89.227.148) by exchange-01.win.nominum.com (64.89.228.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:05:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <016301cb5ac6$035a38e0$0a0eaaa0$@net>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:05:16 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <FA8897B3-BE21-417F-BB4E-316A05D33252@nominum.com>
References: <201009221245.OAA25958@TR-Sys.de> <1AD25EE0-2766-456A-A2F4-5A0D1967D6E8@nominum.com> <016301cb5ac6$035a38e0$0a0eaaa0$@net>
To: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, 'Alfred HÎnes' <ah@tr-sys.de>, "kgrochla@proximetry.com" <kgrochla@proximetry.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] issues with draft-grochla-80211-dhcp-option-00
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:05:31 -0000

On Sep 22, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
> Good answer to the first point, but I think that the second is still valid:
> the option specified does seem to be a good candidate for VSO &
> documentation via an Informational RFC to me.

How is the IEEE a vendor?   I really don't see the problem here--whether this is informational or not, it's a perfectly cromulent application for a DHCP option, and it doesn't make sense for it to be a vendor option.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email