RE: [dhcwg] Agenda for dhc WG meeting in San Diego

Personally, I think it should be INFORMATIONAL. This is documenting
existing behavior, is it not? It is not developing a new standard (i.e.,
the DHC WG can't change how these options are used -- we can only help
to improve the documentation of their existing usage). 

At least, that's my interpretation of Informational in
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt:

4.2.2  Informational

   An "Informational" specification is published for the general
   information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
   Internet community consensus or recommendation.  The Informational
   designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
   very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
   sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
   that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
   (see section 4.2.3).

   Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet
   community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards
   Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as
   Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the
   concurrence of the RFC Editor.

RFC 3942 is silent on the type of RFC needed to keep an existing use of
an option in the old site-specific range. So, there is no impact there.

I guess the DHC WG could ask "if these options had been defined through
the normal DHC WG process for new options, would we have done anything
sufficiently different"? If the consensus answer was NO, there would be
no harm in a standards track document. But my answer to that question
would actually be YES, as I'd see no need for option 208 "MAGIC" if
these options had been developed through the normal process.

For *FUTURE* new options that the PXELINUX folks want to use, if they do
go through the DHC WG process to develop the options, those would then
be standards track documents.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) 
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 7:08 PM
To: David W. Hankins; dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Agenda for dhc WG meeting in San Diego

OK...

- Ralph

On 11/3/06 5:12 PM, "David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins@isc.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 01:32:02PM -0500, Ralph Droms wrote:
>> draft-ietf-dhc-pxelinux-00, "PXELINUX Use of 'Site Local' Option
Space"
>> (Informational)
> 
> I'm not sure if this should be Informational or Proposed Standard.
> The draft does contain normative language.
> 
> Perhaps that's one of the things we should talk about at the end of
> my (very short) presentation.

_______________________________________________
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