Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-08.txt

[Bharat Joshi <[e-mail]>]

Ted,

>> At present, we do not have any other use for this field. This
>> 'type' was inspired from the previous revision of this document
>> and we decided to keep it there thinking that more type of
>> relay-ids may come in future.
>
> I think the bottom line is that if you can't figure out what the
> type field does, you should take it out.   We are not experiencing a
> shortage of DHCPv6 option codes, so there's no reason to keep
> complexity in the spec to account for an unknown future circumstance
> that may or may not come to exist.

BTW, we are looking at DHCPv4 here. We have used up 11 sub-option numbers as of now and so we still have around 244 available.

If we are not worried about the number of sub-options then we can remove the 'type' field. The only other reason for keeping 'type' field was to keep all type of relay-id under one single sub-option.

Let me know what do you think.

Regards,
Bharat
**************** CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely 
for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please 
notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, you are not 
to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other person and 
any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has taken 
every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage 
you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your 
own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves the 
right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this e-mail 
address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the 
Infosys e-mail system.
***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***