RE: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Fri, 25 January 2002 17:19 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08070 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:19:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA28310 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:19:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25296; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:38:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25254 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:38:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06780 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:38:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-149-85.cisco.com [161.44.149.85]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA26099 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:37:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020125112914.00bbbf38@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:32:35 -0500
To: <dhcwg@ietf.org>
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes
In-Reply-To: <JCELKJCFMDGAKJCIGGPNEEJFDJAA.rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020123123638.03826d80@funnel.cisco.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-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

Barr - my memory is that you proposed sunsetting of option codes *after* 
they've gone to PS and have been published in an RFC.  My suggestion was to 
sunset the option codes - and to capture the sunsetting process in an RFC - 
after adoption as a WG work item and before publication as an RFC.

- Ralph

At 02:50 PM 1/23/2002 -0800, Richard Barr Hibbs wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ralph Droms
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 09:43
> >
> > There's a little more to it than just the scarcity of option codes in
> > DHCPv4.  Just before we instituted the new policy of assigning an option
> > code after acceptance to PS, there were several (10-15 or so) that were
> > proposed, had option codes assigned, and then were never followed up
> > on.  Those option codes are now in limbo.
> >
> > Even though we have plenty of options code in DHCPv6, I don't
> > think it's a good idea to have option codes in an uncertain state -
> > assigned to options that never went to PS.  Perhaps we need some sort
> > of sunsetting to establish a process for marking option codes as
> > "unused - do not reassign"...
> >
>
>...you may recall that I proposed exactly that -- the sunsetting of option
>codes -- at least twice in working group meetings, but Thomas Narten argued
>convincingly that the IETF has never been very good at enforcing adherence
>to updated RFCs, and may never be able to do anything but move an RFC to
>Historic status, which doesn't provide any practical, timely relief for the
>option exhaustion problem.
>
>I'd love for most options to be subject either to a sunset clause, but I
>don't know how effective it would be -- certainly one side effect would be
>to keep the DHC working group in existence for a long, long time.
>
>--Barr
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg


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