RE: [dhcwg] Extending the set of available DHCP option codes
"Barr Hibbs" <rbhibbs@pacbell.net> Fri, 30 January 2004 18:03 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04822 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:03:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmczH-0007Lu-6h for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:03:27 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0UI3RkR028256 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:03:27 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmczH-0007Lf-3T for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:03:27 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04806 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:03:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmczF-00043a-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:03:25 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AmcyN-0003uh-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:02:32 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Amcxt-0003mm-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:02:01 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Amcxu-0007Ce-4K; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:02:02 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmcxL-0007AL-7k for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:01:27 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04631 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:01:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmcxJ-0003jq-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:01:25 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AmcwK-0003ZM-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:00:25 -0500
Received: from smtp103.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.169.222]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmcvX-0003QK-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:59:35 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO BarrH63p601) (rbhibbs@pacbell.net@64.169.89.145 with login) by smtp103.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Jan 2004 17:59:34 -0000
Reply-To: rbhibbs@pacbell.net
From: Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Extending the set of available DHCP option codes
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:03:34 -0800
Message-ID: <KIEPLODFDDAMBAJNDFPCGEEEGBAA.rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20040129154925.02b51c88@flask.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
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>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
While I agree that the selection of option (1) gives us the greatest immediate and long-term benefit for DHCPv4, I still believe we should pursue reclamation of additional option codes per the misunderstanding expressed as option (2). --Barr > At the WG meeting in Minneapolis, the WG accepted two mechanisms for > extending the set of available DHCP option codes from > draft-ietf-dhc-extended-optioncodes-00.txt: > > (1) redesignate option codes 128-223 to be assigned to new options > (2) recover disused option codes (the "Impress Server" option being > the canonical example) for reassignment to new options > > It turns out we misunderstood the second of these two mechanisms; the > author of draft-ietf-dhc-extended-optioncodes-00.txt (Bernie Volz) was > referring to option codes already under consideration for reclamation in > "Unused Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Option Codes" > (RFC 3679), rather than option codes defined in RFC 2132 that currently > see little use. > > Therefore, we should not follow up on (2) and will pursue only (1) > (which is now published as draft-ietf-dhc-reclassify-options-00). > _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg