Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Configuration

Bernie,

> Given that duplicating a lot of work is likely to be rather useless,
> what about scaling back the IETF draft to remove much of the text
> and just have the draft indicate the option number and that there
> are suboptions and to see the CableLabs document for complete
> details?

> With the current draft, there's too much there to make it look like
> an attempt at a more complete specification. Therefore, removing
> most of that material and simply using the draft to reserve the
> option number might be best.

I think a better balance can be found. See my other note.

> This approach also means that the IETF (IANA) is out of managing the
> suboption space, but I didn't see that you really wanted that
> anyway. This may also be good since it avoids lots of additional
> debate as to how the suboptions are used (as I assume that is well
> documented in the CableLabs documents).

I disagree strongly with the idea that we give Cablelabs (or any
outside organization) a blank check to define options that extend DHC
without requiring any formal IETF/WG review. This can result in new
sub-options being defined that that don't make sense to us (i.e,
modify the protocol itself). Ditto on defining sub options that
duplicate existing options.

The IETF needs to review DHCP options to make sure they make sense and
are consistent with DHC. Remember the Intel PXE option? I recall folks
not being terribly happy about that.

Thomas

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