Re: [dhcwg] Assigning Option Codes
Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Tue, 11 February 2003 16:29 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10346 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:29:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1BGcQ326802 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:38:26 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1BGcQp26799 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:38:26 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10228 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:28:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1BGY1p25857; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:34:01 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1BGWhp25788 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:32:43 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10045 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:23:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1BGQuJR015595 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:26:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (ch2-dhcp150-75.cisco.com [161.44.150.75]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA28910 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:26:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030211112437.03dcfde8@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:26:52 -0500
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Assigning Option Codes
In-Reply-To: <4FB49E60CFBA724E88867317DAA3D198E1DEC4@homer.incognito.com .>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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>
Patrick, Those option codes that do not have an associated RFC (or RFC-to-be) were assigned before RFC2939 changed the way in which option codes are assigned. The dhc WG is working to recover those never-used option codes so they can be returned to the pool of available codes. - Ralph At 08:21 AM 2/11/2003 -0800, Cosmo, Patrick wrote: >The IANA appears to have a list of options numbers that are assigned to >options that are still in the IETF draft process, or in some cases, appear >merely to have been "requested" (I don't even see an IETF draft for some >of these), see ><http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-extensions/>http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-extensions/. > > >Are these numbers actually assigned to options that have not become RFCs? >Or are they in some sort of "in-between" state where they are being set >aside for an option for the day when it does become an RFC? Or is it >merely a list of requests for numbers, but does not reflect actual >assignment in any way? > >Any comments/insight? > >Patrick _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] Assigning Option Codes Cosmo, Patrick
- Re: [dhcwg] Assigning Option Codes Ralph Droms