IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-01.txt

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Thu, 03 February 2005 22:27 UTC

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 RAA29294 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 17:27:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cwpkm-0001yY-0p for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:47:15 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CwpEc-0005xw-Ff; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:13:58 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CwodA-00054I-G7 for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:35:16 -0500
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 QAA15650 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:35:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.143]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cwovl-0006VL-Nb for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:54:32 -0500
Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j13LYgZW012176 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:34:42 -0500
Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j13LYfHT282554 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:34:41 -0500
Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j13LYf8o026334 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:34:41 -0500
Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (rotala.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.211.15]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j13LYfjB026306; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:34:41 -0500
Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j13LZ6th031850; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:35:06 -0500
Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (narten@localhost) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id j13LZ6T0031846; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:35:06 -0500
Message-Id: <200502032135.j13LZ6T0031846@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-01.txt
In-Reply-To: Message from rdroms@cisco.com of "Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:43:27 EST." <4.3.2.7.2.20050203094011.02c07608@flask.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:35:06 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Cc: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org, Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3

> Margaret - these drafts are sort of falling into a crack.  I don't know of
> another WG that can evaluate the requirements.  The information and option
> format is trivial and the WG can review them.  The WG responded to 3GPP2 to
> prefer VIVSO, and 3GPP2 came back to express preference for RFC 2132-style
> options.  The dhc WG chairs have not been able to get any additional
> justification from 3GPP2, and we have been getting pressure to move forward
> quickly.  Seems at this point a WG last call is a good way to "call the
> question" and get the discussion started so the various issues can
> be aired.

In terms of 3GPP2's preference for 2132-style options, doesn't it come
down to ease of deployability?  RFC 3925 is not yet widely
implemented/deployed, if at all. Do deploying/using the VIVSO option
is more complicated, and may require server upgrades.

2132-style options can clearly deployed today, using  existing
(already deployed) servers.

Is this the essence of the debate?

Thomas

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email