Re: [dhcwg] extending the DHCPv4 option space, VSO usage -- was: Re: issues with draft-grochla-80211-dhcp-option-00
Alfred Hönes <ah@TR-Sys.de> Fri, 24 September 2010 13:35 UTC
Return-Path: <A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de>
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 653143A69A9 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 06:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.059
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.059 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.690, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, 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 fAQ1iDJMG7MU for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 06:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E1853A6B90 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 06:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA217445206; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:33:26 +0200
Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id PAA29345; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:33:20 +0200 (MESZ)
From: Alfred Hönes <ah@TR-Sys.de>
Message-Id: <201009241333.PAA29345@TR-Sys.de>
To: gwz@net-zen.net
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:33:20 +0200
In-Reply-To: <000c01cb5b85$73e3ad70$5bab0850$@net> from Glen Zorn at Sep "24, " 2010 "08:11:39" am
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="hp-roman8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, Ted.Lemon@nominum.com
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] extending the DHCPv4 option space, VSO usage -- was: Re: 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: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:35:38 -0000
At Fri, 24 Sep 2010 08:11:39 +0700, Glen Zorn wrote: > Ted Lemon [mailto://Ted.Lemon@nominum.com] writes: > > ... >> ...I still think that this sort of option isn't what vendor options >> are for-- my understanding of vendor options is that they're for >> vendors--e.g., Cisco, not IEEE. > > Maybe. However, that makes the DHCP usage of the vendor-specific > construct considerably more limited than other IETF protocols (e.g. > RADIUS & Diameter (in which even the IETF is considered a "vendor", > assigned the vendor-id of 0)). That's also my understanding. My expectation/desire is to have similar treatment of this question in affected IETF protocols. Please note that, in turn, the IEEE has assigned an OUI to the IETF (e.g. for use in 802 SNAP headers). So why shouldn't "we" behave reciprocally for the IETF/IANA managed comparable namespace? [ And I agree with Donald that the IEEE term is much better, "organization" should be the keyword, not "vendor". ] Looking at the so-called "Vendor ID" registry, which actually is the IANA registry of "Enterprise IDs", you'll find there the names of a lot of organizations that are not vendors/producers of some kind of equipment but service providers of different kind, universities, research institutes, federal administration branches, counties, cities, publishers, banks, assurance companies, etc. Regarding Ted's previous comments on the difficulty in establishing a uniform [sub-]option request format for vendor options, it should be recalled that both the original (#63) and the enhanced (#125) DHCPv4 vendor information option specifications strongly recommend a uniform format for sub-options. This could be used as a base for follow-up work, restricting the scope to that format, and thus avoiding complications and discussions. Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah@TR-Sys.de | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
- [dhcwg] issues with draft-grochla-80211-dhcp-opti… Alfred Hönes
- Re: [dhcwg] issues with draft-grochla-80211-dhcp-… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] issues with draft-grochla-80211-dhcp-… Glen Zorn
- [dhcwg] extending the DHCPv4 option space, VSO us… Alfred Hönes
- Re: [dhcwg] issues with draft-grochla-80211-dhcp-… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] extending the DHCPv4 option space, VS… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] issues with draft-grochla-80211-dhcp-… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [dhcwg] extending the DHCPv4 option space, VS… Glen Zorn
- Re: [dhcwg] issues with draft-grochla-80211-dhcp-… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] extending the DHCPv4 option space, VS… Alfred Hönes
- Re: [dhcwg] extending the DHCPv4 option space, VS… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] extending the DHCPv4 option space, VS… Thomas Narten