RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-00

I agree with Bernie's suggestion, but hope that the final
text includes BOTH a drawing of the proposed option AND one
or two examples.

--Barr

example:

         1     2          4                8        10
  +------+-----+----------+----- ... ------+---------+---
...
  |Option| Len |Proto Nbr.|Proxy IP Address|Port Nbr.|
  +------+-----+----------+----- ... ------+---------+---
...
               /<-------- First Proxy Tuple -------->/

   Option Header:  option-code: (TBD), Len: 24 (octets)
     Proxy for HTTP: Proto: 80, Proxy IP:
http-proxy-server-1, Port: 8080
     Proxy for HTTP: Proto: 80, Proxy IP:
http-proxy-server-2, Port: 8080
     Proxy for FTP:  Proto: 21, Proxy IP:
ftp-proxy-server-1,  Port: 21

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Droms
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 08:21
>
> Bernie made a suggestion about the syntax of the
> option.  Any comment from
> the WG?
>
> - Ralph
>
> At 01:52 PM 4/12/2004 -0400, Bernie Volz wrote:
> >Perhaps this has been discussed in the past and
> discarded, but what
> >about removing the need for yet-another-list? If
> the option where
> >changed not to use sub-options at all but
> instead carried tuples of:
> >         2-octets of well-known protocol number
> >         4-octets of proxy server internet address
> >         2-octets of proxy server port number
> >The option length would then be multiples of 8 bytes.
> >
> >For example:
> >         Option Header:  TBD-option-code,24-bytes
> >         Proxy for HTTP: 80,http-proxy-server-1,8080
> >         Proxy for HTTP: 80,http-proxy-server-2,8080
> >         Proxy for FTP:  21,ftp-proxy-server-1,21
> >
> >This avoids the need for future protocols to
> have an enumeration and the
> >current "getservicename" calls can be used to
> find the port numbers.
> >
> >Otherwise, I recommend moving this draft forward.
> >
>

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