IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] issues with draft-grochla-80211-dhcp-option-00

"Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net> Thu, 23 September 2010 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <gwz@net-zen.net>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EB4A3A69C0 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.97
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.97 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.329, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TW9O-WPSWPeJ for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa01-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa01-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.82.85]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 419633A689E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 30328 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2010 02:21:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (110.164.147.175) by p3plsmtpa01-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.85) with ESMTP; 23 Sep 2010 02:21:52 -0000
From: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
To: 'Ted Lemon' <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, 'Alfred HÎnes' <ah@tr-sys.de>
References: <201009221245.OAA25958@TR-Sys.de> <1AD25EE0-2766-456A-A2F4-5A0D1967D6E8@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <1AD25EE0-2766-456A-A2F4-5A0D1967D6E8@nominum.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:21:16 +0700
Organization: Network Zen
Message-ID: <016301cb5ac6$035a38e0$0a0eaaa0$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: ActaaCL4HNRAuShYSbKq5SK2CGol6AAXLuvA
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, kgrochla@proximetry.com
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] issues with draft-grochla-80211-dhcp-option-00
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:21:27 -0000

Ted Lemon [mailto://Ted.Lemon@nominum.com] writes:

> On Sep 22, 2010, at 5:45 AM, Alfred HÎnes wrote:
> > Given the scarcity of DHCPv4 option numbers and the intimate
> >    relationship to IEEE 802.11, wouldn't it be a much cleaner
> >    solution to use vendor-specific options for this purpose (under
> >    an IEEE owned vendor ID) than further reducing the DHCPv4 option
> >    code name space -- the latter should preferably be reserved for
> >    options with a more general applicability?
> 
> No, that's not what vendor options are for.   We actually have a fairly
> substantial set of option codes available still, although it's
> definitely limited.   

Good answer to the first point, but I think that the second is still valid:
the option specified does seem to be a good candidate for VSO &
documentation via an Informational RFC to me.

...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email