Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines

[David Hankins <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 9:45 PM, David Hankins <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 13. This draft says nothing about option orders, which is also important.
>> The principle should be not give any specific order when design a new DHCP
>> option. The option should be allowed to appear any place in the DHCP
>> message. The only exception is security option(s). They need to perform
>> algorithm over all other options. They may be allowed to located at the end.
>>
>
> It gets very hard to write concise language here, since the DHCPv6 style of
> options is for options to contain options whose codes are taken from the
> same option spaces.  "Anywhere in the packet" is nice and simple, but very
> wrong in DHCPv6.
>

I tell a lie, the "Clients Request their Options" section gives advice not
to rely on any ordering unless in the most dire of circumstance.

The discussion does go along with ORO/PRL, since there can be an expectation
that the ORO/PRL order leads to packet ordering.

-- 
David W. Hankins
SRE - Systems Engineer
Google, Inc.