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

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.
>
>- Bernie
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>Ted Lemon
>Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 1:57 PM
>To: dhcwg@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on
>draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-00
>
>
>I have a bunch of suggested changes to this draft, which fall into
>three categories:
>
>1. A single change to the protocol itself.
>2. Editorial changes - I think there was some extra text in this draft
>explaining proxy servers that isn't needed, and generate questions
>during the IESG review, so I'm suggesting that it be deleted.
>3. Copyediting.   There were some minor spelling and grammatical errors.
>
>The change to the protocol is that it currently specifies an
>encapsulation of suboptions, like option 82, but allows for the
>appearance of multiple suboptions, which is different than the behavior
>specified for handling options in RFC3396.   This is not a huge
>problem, but it probably requires additional code in DHCP servers and
>clients that isn't necessary, so I'd suggest changing it so that if you
>want to specify multiple proxy servers for the same protocol, you
>should just list more than one IP address/port tuple in the suboption
>for that protocol.
>
>I've enclosed a diff for all the changes.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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