Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DZ9s9-0002Yo-H2; Fri, 20 May 2005 11:57:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DZ9s7-0002Ye-SF for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 20 May 2005 11:57:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01022 for ; Fri, 20 May 2005 11:57:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DZA9W-0005m6-42 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 May 2005 12:15:10 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 May 2005 12:07:51 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.93,123,1115006400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="50361715:sNHT1272558244" Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j4KFuwnI004361; Fri, 20 May 2005 11:56:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.15]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 20 May 2005 11:55:58 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [dhcwg] DHCP options 128-135 in use -- please place on "Tentatively Assigned" list re. RFC 3942 Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 11:55:56 -0400 Message-ID: <8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB212B3CD7@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] DHCP options 128-135 in use -- please place on "Tentatively Assigned" list re. RFC 3942 Thread-Index: AcVdUn3Ug3hL3RSmRpeM2XBAqNWMZwAAWjDQ From: "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" To: "Kostur, Andre" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 May 2005 15:55:58.0049 (UTC) FILETIME=[699D7510:01C55D54] X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b1c41982e167b872076d0018e4e1dc3c Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, iana@iana.org X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1740674074==" Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1740674074== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C55D54.696BB35D" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C55D54.696BB35D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ah, that's sort of what I thought, but it turns out that there isn't anything in the spec that says that. And, in speaking to Josh, there's valid reasons not to require this at all! A server might be configured to send these options always or for a certain "class" of clients (however that class is determined). =20 - Bernie ________________________________ From: Kostur, Andre [mailto:akostur@incognito.com]=20 Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 11:41 AM To: Bernie Volz (volz); Kostur, Andre; peter_blatherwick@mitel.com Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; iana@iana.org Subject: RE: [dhcwg] DHCP options 128-135 in use -- please place on "Tentatively Assigned" list re. RFC 3942 =09 =09 Isn't that the point of 124/125? The client sends in 124 with all of the vendor IDs it's interested in/supports, and a 3925 aware server would key off of that (instead of 60) to choose what to fill 125 with? -----Original Message----- From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 7:29 AM =09 =20 One thing that isn't as clear as it could be in RFC 3925 is how a client communication interested in a certain vendor option set. Part of the reason for this is that it really is up to each vendor to determine that. But that does make it more difficult for server vendors to provide appropriate triggers. Likely most servers will require you to classify the incoming request in some way and then the options configured for that class are returned. A common trigger for this might be option 60. =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C55D54.696BB35D Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [dhcwg] DHCP options 128-135 in use -- please = place on "Tentatively Assigned" list re. RFC 3942
Ah, that's sort of what I thought, but it turns = out that=20 there isn't anything in the spec that says that. And, in speaking to = Josh,=20 there's valid reasons not to require this at all! A server might be = configured=20 to send these options always or for a certain "class" of clients = (however that=20 class is determined).
 
- Bernie

From: Kostur, Andre=20 [mailto:akostur@incognito.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 = 11:41=20 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz); Kostur, Andre;=20 peter_blatherwick@mitel.com
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org;=20 iana@iana.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] DHCP options 128-135 in = use --=20 please place on "Tentatively Assigned" list re. RFC = 3942

Isn't that the point of 124/125?  The = client=20 sends in 124 with all of the vendor IDs it's interested in/supports, = and a=20 3925 aware server would key off of that (instead of 60) to choose what = to fill=20 125 with?
-----Original Message-----
From: Bernie Volz = (volz)=20 [mailto:volz@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 7:29=20 AM
 
One thing that isn't as clear as it could = be in RFC=20 3925 is how a client communication interested in a certain vendor = option=20 set. Part of the reason for this is that it really is up to each = vendor to=20 determine that. But that does make it more difficult for server = vendors to=20 provide appropriate triggers. Likely most servers will require you = to=20 classify the incoming request in some way and then the options = configured=20 for that class are returned. A common trigger for this might=20 be option 60.
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C55D54.696BB35D-- --===============1740674074== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg --===============1740674074==--