Re: [dhcwg] 3315bis question: Changing default DUID to DUID-LL?

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

I was guessing the latter, not the former.  Probably just a product of my
broken brain, though.

On 24 May 2016 at 11:26, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hm, to be clear, the intention was that a large manufacturer of devices
> might want their own number space, not that a large organization purchasing
> heterogeneous devices might then generate DUIDs for those devices out of a
> single enterprise number space.   I may have misunderstood what you were
> suggesting.
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Erik Kline <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hmm, that's not how I would have read that -EN section.  When I read
>> "enterprise" I think more of "for guaranteed unique use within a
>> private space" than "these are my unique numbers to give away to all
>> my friends".
>>
>> I would never have guessed this use case was an intention (though of
>> course it makes sense).
>>
>> On 24 May 2016 at 10:18, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > Yeah, but they don't do that, so it doesn't matter.  That _is_ why we
>> came
>> > up with DUID-EN, but as far as I can tell it was a flop. :(
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Erik Kline <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> It could also be edited for big orgs to use a Vendor-assigned
>> unique ID
>> >> >> based
>> >> >> on Enterprise Number, which I'm pretty sure satisfied the
>> provisioning
>> >> >> case.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I've never actually heard of anyone doing this, although I agree that
>> >> > you
>> >> > are correct in theory.   :)
>> >>
>> >> But might this solve your use case?  If the vendor got an enterprise
>> >> number and each device was flashed with a unique DUID-EN that was also
>> >> printed on the box...?
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>