Re: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6

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