Re: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6

Mark Stapp <mjs@cisco.com> Tue, 22 January 2002 20:36 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09384 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:36:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA11630 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:36:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA10817; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:23:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA10796 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:23:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09008 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:23:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from goblet.cisco.com (mirapoint@goblet.cisco.com [161.44.168.80]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA04910; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:23:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from MJS-W2K.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-149-110.cisco.com [161.44.149.110]) by goblet.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AAM73107; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:23:00 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020122152250.025e3638@goblet.cisco.com>
X-Sender: mjs@goblet.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:26:13 -0500
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
From: Mark Stapp <mjs@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020122144616.036c6a28@funnel.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

I think that this proposal makes a great deal of sense. I do think that the 
boot-file and tftp server address(es) options need to be added to the core 
list: they really are 'core' to the boot process.

-- Mark

At 02:55 PM 1/22/2002 -0500, Ralph Droms wrote:
>We've recently experienced a proliferation of proposed and defined options 
>for DHCPv6.  Initially, the WG agreed to publish all options that were 
>defined at the time the base spec was completed in the same doc.  I'm 
>having second thoughts about that decision.  Here's what I'm thinking:
>
>* The new options are adding more weight to
>   an already hefty document
>* Keeping all the options in one doc make
>   updating any one option more complicated
>* Reviewing all of these options will slow
>   down the acceptance process
>
>I propose that we put a moratorium on adding any new options to 
>draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt, and move any non-essential options out of 
>draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt into individual drafts.  The definition of 
>"essential" is open to discussion; here's a first pass at a list of the 
>options to retain in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt:
>
>* DHCP unique identifier option
>* Identity association option
>* IA Address option
>* Requested Temporary Addresses (RTA) Option
>* Option request option
>* Preference option
>* Elapsed Time
>* Client message option
>* Server message option
>* Authentication option
>* Server unicast option
>* Domain Search Option
>* Domain Name Server Option
>* Status Code Option
>
>- Ralph
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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