[dhcwg] Choosing a value for option 60 (Vendor Class ID)

Chris Pearson <chris.pearson@infocus.com> Wed, 05 June 2002 01:10 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21101 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 21:10:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id VAA04969 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 21:11:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA04831; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 21:09:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA04805 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 21:09:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from manta.infocus.com (moray.infocus.com [209.84.97.254]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21034 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 21:08:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by manta.infocus.com (Postfix, from userid 5) id EBAEF27848; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 18:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonata.infocus.com(200.1.10.70), claiming to be "sonata.infocuscorp.com" via SMTP by manta.infocus.com, id smtpdAAA1LMdY_; Tue Jun 4 18:09:17 2002
Received: by sonata with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <MJGRRR8C>; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 18:05:46 -0700
Message-ID: <EEBC1981C362D311AA230008C7E627BA07D8EB05@toccata>
From: Chris Pearson <chris.pearson@infocus.com>
To: "'dhcwg@ietf.org'" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Cc: De Tran <de.tran@infocus.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 18:07:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: [dhcwg] Choosing a value for option 60 (Vendor Class ID)
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

Greetings to the work group!  This is my first post, so please let me know
if I'm off-topic.

After grepping the Web and parsing the thread "Interpretation of Option 60
(Vendor Class ID)" from this list, I'm pretty certain I know the answer to
this question ("no"), but in the spirit of leaving no stone unturned, I'll
ask it anyway: Is there a standard, IANA registry, best practice or
convention regarding the values that clients may assign to vendor class ID?

In the case I'm presently concerned with, the ID will be embedded in
firmware and thus unchangeable in the field, so it's important to get it
right.  The main goal is to reduce probability of collision with other
vendor IDs, and more generally, to harmonize with prevailing wisdom.  (But
re the character string vs. octet string question, I'm convinced that
interoperation with major DHCP server implementations requires the former
interpretation.)  Any and all comments appreciated.

-- Chris Pearson

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg