RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: vendor-specific issues

Ralph:

See below (BV>).

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:24 PM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: vendor-specific issues

At 11:14 AM 5/8/2002 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
> >    Servers can interpret the meanings of multiple class specifications
> >    in an implementation dependent or configuration dependent manner, and
> >    so the use of multiple classes by a DHCP client should be based on
> >    the specific server implementation and configuration which will be
> >    used to process that User class option.
>
>This sure reads badly in the sense that it smells like
>interoperability will not result. But I'm not sure what the intent of
>the wording is here... Could someone clarify?

The idea is to support additional flexibility and precision in identifying 
clients in some deployments.  This situation anticipates that clients will 
be configured to send additional classing information and servers will have 
policies to select configuration information based on those 
classes.  Because both the clients and server have been "managed" for this 
deployment, they will interoperate.  A client that moves and tries to use a 
server that does not have policies for the classes specified by the client, 
or a client that does not supply the class specifications will get 
configuration information that is not selected on the basis of the client 
classes.

BV> Don't we have this kind of text in the DHCPv4 User Class option? Yes (see
below) and why don't we use this text since that passed the IESG?

   This option MAY carry multiple User Classes.  Servers may interpret
   the meanings of multiple class specifications in an implementation
   dependent or configuration dependent manner, and so the use of
   multiple classes by a DHCP client should be based on the specific
   server implementation and configuration which will be used to process
   that User class option.

> > 22.18. Vendor-specific Information option
> >
> >    This option is used by clients and servers to exchange
> >    vendor-specific information.  The definition of this information is
> >    vendor specific.  The vendor is indicated in the enterprise-number
> >    field.  Clients that do not receive desired vendor-specific
> >    information SHOULD make an attempt to operate without it, although
> >    they may do so (and announce they are doing so) in a degraded mode.
>
>This also reads badly and against interoperabilty. DHC clients should
>never depend on vendor-specific options in order to function
>correctly.

This text is essentially copied directly from section 8.4 of RFC2132 
(which, of course, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea).  Perhaps the 
differentiation should be "enhanced operation" with the vendor-specific 
information versus "functioning operation" without?

BV> Yes, I like enhanced operation!

- Ralph

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