RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-bcmcv{4, 6}-option-??.txt
"Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com> Thu, 10 February 2005 20:02 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 PAA00631 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:02:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CzKqg-00046P-19 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:23:38 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CzKNN-0006lL-FG; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:53:21 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CzKK8-00053q-IH for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:50:05 -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 OAA29201 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:49:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CzKeD-0003o2-0r for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:10:45 -0500
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (171.71.177.238) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2005 12:00:07 -0800
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.88,193,1102320000"; d="scan'208"; a="613673560:sNHT29858408"
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j1AJnMTl019321; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:49:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from volzw2k (che-vpn-cluster-1-127.cisco.com [10.86.240.127]) by flask.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id AOZ96054; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:49:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
To: 'Ted Lemon' <mellon@fugue.com>, 'Ralph Droms' <rdroms@cisco.com>, kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com, pyegani@cisco.com, Lila.Madour@ericsson.com
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-bcmcv{4, 6}-option-??.txt
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:49:21 -0500
Organization: Cisco
Message-ID: <003101c50fa9$9dd55260$6401a8c0@amer.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <BBA74967-B478-4B97-A899-F7E39FE9FDC7@fugue.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a1852b4f554b02e7e4548cc7928acc1f
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
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: 93e7fb8fef2e780414389440f367c879
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Why not just have one draft? Yes, great recommendation. I've always liked this concept, especially when the options and related processing are essentially the same. > Regarding the bcmcv4 draft, the enc byte needs to go. Agreed. But, you don't indicate how the two forms of data are to be represented. Having the ability to specify address is important if the devices using this option might be limited in terms of the size of the code they can support. There are three possibilities: 1. Define two options as is done for DHCPv6. 2. Drop the ability to specify addresses. I can't see that this would be a significant issue for users of this option. 3. Encode the address as standard reverse DNS names (d.c.b.a.in-addr.arpa). Also, the current example in the DHCPv4 draft is wrong in several respects: +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |TBD|38 | 5 |'b'|'c'|'m'|'c'|'1'| 8 |'c'|'a'|'r'|'r'|'i'|'e'|'r'| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |'1'| 3 |'c'|'o'|'m'| 5 |'b'|'c'|'m'|'c'|'2'| 8 |'c'|'a'|'r'|'r'| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |'i'|'e'|'r'|'1'| 3 |'c'|'o'|'m'| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 1. The enc byte is not present (this is good since we'd like to ditch it anyway). 2. The domain names are encoded incorrectly. The domain name shown above would be: bcmc1.carrier1.com.bcmc2.carrier1.com. Not the two names as intended. >From RFC 1035, section 3.1: Domain names in messages are expressed in terms of a sequence of labels. Each label is represented as a one octet length field followed by that number of octets. Since every domain name ends with the null label of the root, a domain name is terminated by a length byte of zero. The high order two bits of every length octet must be zero, and the remaining six bits of the length field limit the label to 63 octets or less. So, the null labels are missing from the two domain names. Of course, if compression is used, you'll have to follow the rules in section 4.1.4 of RFC 1035. And, if compression is supported, don't we need to say that the compression is relative to the start of the OPTION data rather than to the packet itself - as is the case for DNS: The OFFSET field specifies an offset from the start of the message (i.e., the first octet of the ID field in the domain header). A zero offset specifies the first byte of the ID field, etc. I'm also a bit concerned with allowing compression, especially for DHCPv6, as section 8 of RFC 3315 explicitly PROHIBITS compression. There problems need to be corrected before I'd recommend advancing the work. - Bernie > -----Original Message----- > From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Ted Lemon > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 2:08 PM > To: Ralph Droms > Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on > draft-ietf-dhc-bcmcv{4,6}-option-??.txt > > > I have a couple of comments. First, given the process we've been > going through to free up option codes, I don't think there's a strong > argument for making these drafts depend on the new vendor-specific > option encoding, by which I basically mean I don't care about this > issue, and I don't think the wg needs to care about it. > > My main concern about these two drafts is that they are two drafts. > Why not just have one draft? There's so much common text > between them > that it seems bogus. In saying this, I realize that I may well have > argued the other way earlier - I don't remember the history of these > drafts very well. So this isn't a big deal, but I am curious if the > authors can speak to this point. > > Regarding the bcmcv4 draft, the enc byte needs to go. I > don't see any > reason for this added complexity. Also, the draft specifies that > clients should support compression, which I think is right since it's > consistent with how the domain-name-search-list option works, > but then > the example that's given isn't compressed. So this should > be fixed - > the example should be compressed. > > The text in the bcmcv6 draft is less specific, and the examples are > extremely unspecific - I would suggest making them more like the ones > in the bcmcv4 draft if the two drafts can't just be merged. > > If the changes I've suggested can be made, I'd be in favor of > advancing > these drafts separately. I'd definitely be somewhat happier if they > were combined. > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-bcmcv4… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-bc… Parviz Yegani
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-bc… Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-bc… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-bc… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-bc… Parviz Yegani
- RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-bc… Parviz Yegani
- RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call ondraft-ietf-dhc-bcm… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call ondraft-ietf-dhc-bcm… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-bc… Barr Hibbs
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-bc… Barr Hibbs